/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/210722.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, July 22, 2021, Vol. 23, No. 140

                            Headlines

1 GROUP LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Panico Suit Claims
245 GOURMET: Faces Tepale Suit Over Deli Workers' Unpaid Wages
332 MAIN INC: Triplett Seeks Hostess & Servers' Unpaid Wages
360 DIGITECH: Faces Balderas Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
360 DIGITECH: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of September 13 Deadline

360 DIGITECH: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 13 Deadline
3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Spaniol Claims
3M COMPANY: Barber Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Wilson Alleges
3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Vuncannon Says

3M COMPANY: Faces Terell Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Components
3M COMPANY: Loya Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Olsen Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Seith Suit Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
3M COMPANY: Smith Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products

3M COMPANY: Speights Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products
ADVENTIST HEALTH: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, McDonough Says
AETNA LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Lake's Amended Complaint Partly Granted
AFTERPAY LTD: Faces Class Action Over Undisclosed Fees, Interest
ALPHABET INC: 9th Cir. Reverses in Part Class Action Dismissal

AMCO INSURANCE: B and F Appeals Insurance Class Suit Dismissal
AMERIPRISE ‎FINANCIAL: Locke Lord Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
APPLE INC: Appeals Ruling in Hazlitt BIPA Suit to Seventh Circuit
ARIZONA TILE: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Set for Nov. 9
ARIZONA: Compelled to Produce Withheld Documents in Toomey Suit

ASPEN AMERICAN: Court Dismisses Berkseth-Rojas Suit w/ Prejudice
BALTIMORE, MD: Court Orders Unemployment Benefits to Continue
BARCLAYS PLC: Hearing to Continue on Forex Price-Fixing Claims
BIG DEAL: Faces Graham Suit Over CBD Products' Deceptive Marketing
BLACKSTAR FIBER: Misclassifies Inspectors, Roberts Suit Claims

BOBSHAN ENTERTAINMENT: Linwood Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Under FLSA
BOND PHARMACY: Denning Suit Seeks to Certify Class
CALIFORNIA: Saddozai v. Atchley Dismissed With Leave to Amend
CANADA: Ex-RCMP Member Reacts to Post Over Systemic Racism Suit
CANON USA: Pushes Data Breach Suit Dismissal for Lack of Standing

CANON USA: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Ransomware Attack
CARLOTZ INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 7 Deadline
CARLOTZ INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of September 7 Deadline
CARLOTZ INC: Portnoy Law Reminds of September 7 Deadline
CASELLA WASTE: Settles Suit Over Ontario County Landfill Odors

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Adell Appeals Ruling in Breach of Contract Suit
CHOBANI LLC: Faces Class Suit in New York Over "Fair Trade" Claims
CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
CITY COMPASSIONATE: Pettibone Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
CONIFER HOLDINGS: Captain Skrip's 1st Amended Complaint Dismissed

CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Faces Lam Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
COVINGTON SPECIALTY: Wins Judgment on Pleadings in Till Metro Suit
CVS HEALTH: Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial in Mier Suit
DARTMOUTH, NOVA SCOTIA: Class Lawsuit in Building Fire Certified
DETROIT, MI: Faces Class Suit Over Property Damages Due to Flooding

DIDI GLOBAL: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of September 7 Deadline
DRAFTKINGS INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of August 31 Deadline
DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Drop in Share Price
DRAFTKINGS INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 31 Deadline
ELITE LINE: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Shaw Class Suit Alleges

EMBE RESTAURANT: Underpays Service Workers, Curko et al. Claim
EPIC LANDSCAPE: Court Refuses to Accept Settlement in Albelo Suit
EPIC LANDSCAPE: Missouri Court Narrows Claims in Albelo Suit
FEDEX GROUND: Derieux Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to D. New Jersey
FIRST NATIONAL: Faces Rudy Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages

FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: New York Court Dismisses Preis FDCPA Suit
FORD MOTOR: Judge Approves Class Suit Over Erroneous Marketing
FORD MOTOR: Shelby Automobiles Lack Cooling Systems, Suit Alleges
FORSTER & GARBUS: E.D. New York Dismisses Klein FDCPA Class Suit
FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline

FRITO-LAY NORTH: Smith Files Mislabeling Suit Over Corn Chips
FULL TRUCK: Howard G. Smith Reminds of September 10 Deadline
FULL TRUCK: Kessler Topaz Reminds of September 10 Deadline
FULL TRUCK: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 10 Deadline
GEODIS LOGISTICS: Slade Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California

GETSWIFT LTD: Phi Finney Discloses Settlement in Securities Suit
GOOGLE LLC: Singh Bid for Class Certification Stricken
GOOGLE LLC: Singh Suit Seeks to Certify Class
HARTFORD FIRE: Seattle Symphony Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
HAWAI'I: Chatman Wins Bid for Provisional Class Certification

HILTON GRAND: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Wheeler Suit Alleges
HOMEMADE TAQUERIA: Underpays Delivery Workers, Santamaria Says
ICC ASSOCIATES: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Salomon Says
INNOVATIVE HEIGHTS: Stauffer's Bid to Remand BIPA Suit Granted
INTRALINKS INC: Studio 1220 Appeals Case Dismissal to Ninth Circuit

IRVING K MOTOR: Williamson Sues Over Unsolicited Voice Messages
JAMES RIVER: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 7 Deadline
JAMES RIVER: Howard G. Smith Reminds of September 7 Deadline
JAMES RIVER: Kessler Topaz Reminds of September 7 Deadline
JAMES RIVER: Robbins Geller Reminds of Sept. 7 Deadline

JAMES RIVER: Thornton Law Reminds of September 7 Deadline
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Lawsuits Over Benzene in Sunscreens
JOHNSON CONSUMER: Keller Lenkner Files Suit Against Subsidiary
KANZHUN LIMITED: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 10 Deadline
KEUKA COLLEGE: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

KEURIG GREEN: Downing Appeals Ruling Striking Class Allegations
KOONS OF TYSONS: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Workers
KROGER CO: Wins Bid to Stay Discovery in Kirkbride Class Suit
LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Simner Suit Over Defective Dishwashers
LIMETREE BAY: Judge Challenges Attorneys With Deadlines in Suit

LONESTAR SPORTS: Faces Escalante Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
MAINSTAGE MANAGEMENT: Layton Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Classes
MARY KAY: Faces BIPA Class Action in Illinois State Court
MATCH GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Class Action Suit

MAXWELL HOUSE: US Judge Discusses Settlement in Mislabeling Suit
METRO PORTFOLIOS: Response Time to Class Cert Denial Bid Extended
MHR FUND: Faces Butchko Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
MUTUAL SECURITIES: Gilotti's Bid to Intervene in Milliner Denied
MUTUAL SECURITIES: Loses Bid to Enforce Agreement in Milliner Suit

MUTUAL SECURITIES: Milliner's Bid to Vacate Dismissal Order Denied
NETFLIX INC: Village of Shiloh Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Court Refuses to Certify Class Action
OCUGEN INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 17 Deadline
OMAR'S PLANET: Fernandez Seeks Delivery Workers' Unpaid OT Wages

ORPHAZYME A/S: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 7 Deadline
ORPHAZYME A/S: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 7 Deadline
ORPHAZYME A/S: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of September 7 Deadline
OUTLAW LABORATORIES: Skyline Loses Bid for Class Certification
PACE UNIVERSITY: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

PAVILIONS MARKET: Bid to Continue Class Cert. Deadline Tossed
PAVILIONS MARKET: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to August 30
PAVILIONS MARKET: Court Signs Protective Order in Mendoza Suit
PAY READY: Lawrence Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
PFIZER INC: Subsidiaries Agree to Pay $345M in EpiPen Settlement

PILOT TRAVEL: Waltrip Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Truck Drivers
PINGUIL INC: Faces Thao FLSA Suit Over Mandatory Tip Pooling
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Lichtinger Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. New York
QUEBEC: Court Allows Class Action Against Rental Car Companies
RIVIERA MAYA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cruz Suit Alleges

ROCKET COMPANIES: Faces Arent Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
ROCKET COMPANIES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 30 Deadline
ROCKET COMPANIES: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of August 30 Deadline
RUSSELL SAGE COLLEGE: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
S-L DISTRIBUTION: Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Reply to July 26

SEGA CORP: Faces Class Suit Over "Rigged" Key Master Arcade Games
SERVALL LLC: Hagye Loses Bid for Conditional Class Certification
SHOREFRONT OPERATING: Wins Bid to Reconsider Ruling in Chow Suit
SIGNATURE FLIGHT: $560K Settlement in Boddie Class Suit Approved
SONY MUSIC: Dozens of Ex-Employees May Join Suit Over Work Culture

SPITERI CONSTRUCTION: Martinez Sues Over Workers' Unpaid Wages
STABLE ROAD: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit
STANFORD FEDERAL: Trigueros Suit Remanded to Santa Clara Super. Ct.
SYMETRA LIFE: Trial Date in Davis Suit Set for Sept. 11
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

TALISMAN ENERGY: Provost Umphrey Finalizes $24MM Cash Settlement
TATE & KIRLIN: Faces Dauer Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection Acts
TEVA BRANDED: Wilkinson Files Suit in D. New Jersey
TEXAS: Appeals Court Rejects Suit Over Baseball Cheating Scandal
TRANSUNION LLC: Sheppard Mullin Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling

TRI-STATE INSURANCE: La Cocina Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
TWININGS NORTH AMERICA: Mangels Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: N.Z. Drivers File Suit Over Contractor Status
UBS GROUP: Forex Rigging Class Action Mulled in London Courts
UNILEVER MANUFACTURING: Fails to Provide Overtime Pay, Perez Says

UNITED STATES: Seeks to Stay Faust Case Proceedings
UNUM GROUP: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Pittman Securities Suit
WAL-MART: Seeks Modification of Briefing Schedule in Alvarado Suit
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Families to File Lawsuit Due to Flood Damage
WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Parties Stipulate to Extend Class Cert Reply

XYLOCOPA LLC: Caceres Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid OT
ZENNI OPTICAL: Cruz Suit Moved to C.D. Illinois
[*] Court Approves Autopay Options Class Action Settlement

                            *********

1 GROUP LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Panico Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
The case, JENNIFER PANICO, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1 GROUP LLC d/b/a STOVEGUARD,
Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-01661-WFJ-CPT (M.D. Fla., July 9, 2021)
arises from the Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant misclassified her and
other similarly situated employees, who has worked for the
Defendant remotely from home. Although they regularly performed
work more than 40 hours for the Defendant, the Defendant did not
compensate them at least the prevailing minimum wage for all hours
they have worked, and denied them of their lawfully earned overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek,
added the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint to recover actual damages for
unpaid wages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.

1 Group LLC d/b/a StoveGuard provides custom-cut stove protectors,
specific to your stove brand and model to provide a dishwasher-safe
solution to those tough stove messes. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wolfgang M. Florin, Esq.
          Christopher D. Gray, Esq.
          FLORIN GRAY BOUZAS OWENS, LLC
          16524 Pointe Village Drive, Suite 100
          Lutz, FL 33558
          Tel: (727) 220-4000
          Fax: (727) 483-7942
          E-mail: wflorin@fgbolaw.com
                  cgray@fgbolaw.com

245 GOURMET: Faces Tepale Suit Over Deli Workers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARNOLDO TEPALE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 245 GOURMET FOOD INC. (D/B/A CAFE 28) and EUI CHUN
WHANG, Case No. 1:21-cv-05950 (S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2021) seeks to
recover for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff contends that he worked for the Defendants in excess
of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime
and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they worked.
Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of
the hours worked and failed to pay him appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay him the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he has had to
work over 10 hours a day, added the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff Tepale was employed as a deli man at the deli located at
245 5th Ave, New York.

The Defendants operate a deli located in the Rose Hill neighborhood
in Manhattan. The Individual Defendant, Eui Chun Whang, possesses
operational control over Defendant Corporation, possesses ownership
interests in Defendant Corporation, and controls significant
functions of Defendant Corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

332 MAIN INC: Triplett Seeks Hostess & Servers' Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
LORI TRIPLETT, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 332 MAIN, INC. d/b/a GRAYS ON MAIN,
Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-00532 (M.D. Tenn., July 12, 2021) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, and
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a hostess from
approximately January or February 2018 to May or June 2018 and as a
server from approximately May or June 2018 through October 2019.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant improperly required her and
other similarly situated tipped employees to pay for uniforms and
equipment without reimbursing them. The Defendant also required
tipped employees to study for menu tests off-the-clock without
compensating them for the time spent studying. By doing such, the
Defendant has forfeited its right to utilize the "tip credit" in
satisfying its wage obligations to their tipped employees,
including the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant has violated the
FLSA's minimum wage and overtime wage mandates by paying the
Plaintiff and all those similarly situated, an hourly rate less
than the statutory minimum and for all their time worked.

Moreover, the Defendant unlawfully kept its employees' tips by
automatically retaining gratuity and/or any additional tips on top
of gratuity paid out by customers who booked private, pre-arranged
and/or pre-scheduled events. Instead, they were only paid a flat
fee for each private, pre-arranged and/or pre-scheduled event they
worked.

332 Main, Inc. d/b/a Grays on Main own and operates restaurant and
bar at 332 Main Street, Franklin, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Garrison, Esq.
          Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
          Philips Plaza
          414 Union Street, Suite 900
          Nashville, TN 37219
          Tel: (615) 244-2202
          Fax: (615) 252-3798
          E-mail: dgarrison@barretjohnston.com
                  jfrank@barretjohnston.com

360 DIGITECH: Faces Balderas Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO BALDERAS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. 360 DIGITECH, INC., HAISHENG WU, JIANG WU, and ZUOLI
XU, Case No. 1:21-cv-06013 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2021) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired 360 DigiTech securities between April 30, 2020
and July 7, 2021, both dates inclusive seeking to recover damages
caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.

360 DigiTech, through its subsidiaries, operates a digital consumer
finance platform under the 360 Jietiao brand in the People's
Republic of China ("PRC"). Its platform provides online consumer
finance products to the borrowers funded by institutional funding
partners. The Company also provides incremental credit assessment,
collection, and other services, as well as guarantee for defaulted
loans. The Company was formerly known as 360 Finance, Inc. and
changed its name to 360 DigiTech, Inc. in September 2020.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that the Company had been collecting personal information
in violation of relevant PRC laws and regulations.

On July 8, 2021, reports circulated on social media to the effect
that the Company's core product, the 360 IOU app, had been removed
from major app stores. The reports came on the heels of the removal
of other companies' apps as Chinese regulators investigated their
customer data protection practices.

On this news, 360 DigiTech's stock price fell $7.12 per share, or
21.48%, to close at $26.02 per share on July 8, 2021.

Then, on July 9, 2021, Seeking Alpha reported that 360 DigiTech
confirmed the removal of its 360 IOU app from the Android app store
and quoted a Company spokesperson, who disclosed that the Company
had "submitted a new rectification plan and stepped up the whole
process."

As a result of Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions, and
the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

360 DigiTech, through its subsidiaries, operates a digital consumer
finance platform under the 360 Jietiao brand in the PRC. Its
platform provides online consumer finance products to the borrowers
funded by institutional funding partners. The Company also provides
incremental credit assessment, collection, and other services, as
well as guarantee for defaulted loans.

The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010
          Atlanta, GA 30346
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com

360 DIGITECH: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of September 13 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against 360 DigiTech, Inc. ("360 DigiTech", or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: QFIN) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 21-cv-06013, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired 360 DigiTech
securities between April 30, 2020 and July 7, 2021, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased 360 DigiTech securities
during the Class Period, you have until September 13, 2021 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com
or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and the number of shares purchased.

360 DigiTech, through its subsidiaries, operates a digital consumer
finance platform under the 360 Jietiao brand in the People's
Republic of China ("PRC"). Its platform provides online consumer
finance products to the borrowers funded by institutional funding
partners. The Company also provides incremental credit assessment,
collection, and other services, as well as guarantee for defaulted
loans. The Company was formerly known as 360 Finance, Inc. and
changed its name to 360 DigiTech, Inc. in September 2020.

The complaint alleges throughout the Class Period, Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company had been collecting personal
information in violation of relevant PRC laws and regulations; (ii)
accordingly, 360 DigiTech was exposed to an increased risk of
regulatory scrutiny and/or enforcement action; and (iii) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On July 8, 2021, reports circulated on social media to the effect
that the Company's core product, the 360 IOU app, had been removed
from major app stores. The reports came on the heels of the removal
of other companies' apps as Chinese regulators investigated their
customer data protection practices.

On this news, 360 DigiTech's stock price fell $7.12 per share, or
21.48%, to close at $26.02 per share on July 8, 2021.

Then, on July 9, 2021, Seeking Alpha reported that 360 DigiTech
confirmed the removal of its 360 IOU app from the Android app store
and quoted a Company spokesperson, who disclosed that the Company
had "submitted a new rectification plan and stepped up the whole
process."

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:

Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

360 DIGITECH: Schall Law Firm Reminds of September 13 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against 360 DigiTech,
Inc. ("DigiTech" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: QFIN) for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between April 30,
2020 and July 7, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 13, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://schallfirm.com/cases/360-digitech-inc/#case-form to
participate.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. DigiTech collected its customers'
personal information in a manner that violated People's Republic of
China ("PRC") laws and regulations. The Company was exposed to a
greater risk of government regulation within the country. Based on
these facts, the Company's public statements were false and
materially misleading throughout the class period. When the market
learned the truth about DigiTech, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation. [GN]



3M COMPANY: AFFF Products Contain Toxic Chemicals, Spaniol Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH EDMOND SPANIOL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02097-RMG
(D.S.C., July 14, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities. The Defendants failed to use reasonable
and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products. Further, the Defendants failed
to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the
Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian
and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors
would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition, says the suit.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
         Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
         Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
         ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
         2160 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 328-9200
         Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

3M COMPANY: Barber Alleges Injury From Exposure to Toxic AFFF
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL DANE BARBER v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company), BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY, CHEMGUARD,
INC., CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC, CHUBB FIRE, LTD., CORTEVA, INC., DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.), DYNAX CORPORATION,
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, KIDDE-FENWAL, INC., KIDDE PLC,
NATIONAL FOAM, INC., THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:21-cv-02055-RMG (D.S.C., July 12,
2021) seeks damages for personal injury sustained by the Plaintiff
and others similarly situated resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. AFFF has been used for decades by military
and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.

According to the complaint, the Defendants collectively designed,
marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained
users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or
otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge
that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which
would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with
PFAS.

PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. PFAS includes perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and
perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals,
including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. The Defendants
knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body
while presenting significant health risks to humans, the suit
contends.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a
direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products at
various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and
firefighting activities.

The Barber case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company is an American multinational conglomerate corporation
operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, U.S. health
care, and consumer goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 328-9200
          Facsimile: (205) 328-9456
          E-mail: gregc@elglaw.com

3M COMPANY: Exposed AFFF Products' Users to PFAS, Wilson Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILIP RICHARD WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02103-RMG
(D.S.C., July 14, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The Plaintiff brings this action for damages arising out of serious
medical conditions and complications sustained as a direct result
of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)
products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances collectively known as PFAS at various locations during
the course of his training and firefighting activities. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities
and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, the suit alleges.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
         Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
         Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
         ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
         2160 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 328-9200
         Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

3M COMPANY: Exposed Firefighters to Toxic Products, Vuncannon Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY MAX VUNCANNON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02100-RMG
(D.S.C., July 14, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
arising out of serious medical conditions and complications
sustained as a direct result of his exposure to the Defendants'
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS at various locations during the course of his training and
firefighting activities. The Defendants failed to use reasonable
and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
their PFAS-containing AFFF products. Further, the Defendants failed
to warn public entities and firefighter trainees, including the
Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with
their AFFF products, or firefighters employed by either civilian
and/or military employers that use of and/or exposure to the
Defendants' AFFF products containing PFAS and/or its precursors
would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition, says the suit.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
         Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
         Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
         ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
         2160 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 328-9200
         Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

3M COMPANY: Faces Terell Suit Over AFFF Products' Toxic Components
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLEY JAMES TERELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02099-RMG
(D.S.C., July 14, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer due to his
exposure to the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during
the course of his training and firefighting activities.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
         Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
         Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
         ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
         2160 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 328-9200
         Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

3M COMPANY: Loya Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO ALONSO LOYA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02093-RMG
(D.S.C., July 14, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to use
reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture,
labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and
distribution of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products
containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants' AFFF products are
dangerous to human health because PFAS are highly toxic and
carcinogenic chemicals and can accumulate in the blood and body of
exposed individuals. The Defendants have also failed to warn public
entities and consumers, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products. The
Plaintiff used the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in
their intended manner, without significant change in the products'
condition due to inadequate warning about the products' danger. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, says the suit.

As a result of alleged exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
         Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
         Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
         ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
         2160 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 328-9200
         Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

3M COMPANY: Olsen Sues Over Complications From AFFF Products
------------------------------------------------------------
IVER ALFRED OLSEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02094-RMG
(D.S.C., July 14, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit says.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
         Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
         Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
         ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
         2160 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 328-9200
         Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

3M COMPANY: Seith Suit Alleges Toxic Exposure From AFFF Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
GILES EDWARD SEITH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02095-RMG
(D.S.C., July 14, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the
Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products and also failed to warn public entities and firefighter
trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably
come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or
exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due
to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals
and was diagnosed with prostate cancer, the suit alleges.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
         Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
         Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
         ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
         2160 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 328-9200
         Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

3M COMPANY: Smith Suit Claims Complications From AFFF Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM WARNER SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02096-RMG
(D.S.C., July 14, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to use reasonable and
appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning,
instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of
aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic,
toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as
PFAS, which are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products are dangerous as PFAS
binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material
and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their
unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body
of exposed individuals. Further, the Defendants failed to warn
public entities, firefighter trainees who they knew would
foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper
handling of the products, the suit says.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged omissions and misconduct,
the Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer due to his
exposure to the Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products during
the course of his training and firefighting activities.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
         Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
         Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
         ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
         2160 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 328-9200
         Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

3M COMPANY: Speights Sues Over Harmful Effects of AFFF Products
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN ADAMS SPEIGHTS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company; ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP,
as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-02098-RMG
(D.S.C., July 14, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict
liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied
warranties, and wantonness.

The Plaintiff brings this action for damages arising out of serious
medical conditions and complications sustained as a direct result
of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)
products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances collectively known as PFAS at various locations during
the course of his training and firefighting activities. The
Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the
design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training,
selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF
products. Further, the Defendants failed to warn public entities
and firefighter trainees, including the Plaintiff, who they knew
would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products, or
firefighters employed by either civilian and/or military employers
that use of and/or exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products
containing PFAS and/or its precursors would pose a danger to human
health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff used the
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products in their intended manner,
without significant change in the products' condition. The
Plaintiff was diagnosed with prostate cancer as a result of
exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products, the suit alleges.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul.
Minnesota.

ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products
based in Exton, Pennsylvania.

Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based
in Trussville, Alabama.

Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North
America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld
and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates &
hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of
business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina.

Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company
based in Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty
chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located
at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin.

Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in
Baytown, Texas.

Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium
technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in
Wilmington, Delaware.

Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection
systems based in United Kingdom.

Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte,
North Carolina.

Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company
based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic
iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma.

Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical
company based in Wilmington, Delaware.

Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production
of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York.

E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and
specialty products with principal place of business at 1007 Market
Street, Wilmington, Delaware.

Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection systems
based in Ashland, Massachusetts.

Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in
Mebane, North Carolina.

Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic
chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina.

National Foam, Inc. is a manufacturer of foam concentrate, foam
proportioning systems, fixed and portable foam firefighting
equipment, with principal place of business located at 350 East
Union Street, West Chester, Pennsylvania.

The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals
with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington,
Delaware.

Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system
components and ancillary building construction products, including
Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street,
Marinette, Wisconsin.

United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational
conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged
with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon
Technologies.

UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control
systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                

         Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
         Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
         Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
         ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
         2160 Highland Avenue South
         Birmingham, AL 35205
         Telephone: (205) 328-9200
         Facsimile: (205) 328-9456

ADVENTIST HEALTH: Fails to Provide COBRA Notice, McDonough Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN MCDONOUGH individually and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, v. ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/SUNBELT, INC., Case
No. 8:21-cv-01706-WFJ-TGW (M.D. Fla., July 14, 2021) alleges that
the Defendant failed to provide the Plaintiff and the putative
class members with notice of their right to elect continuation
health coverage under Continuation of Health Coverage/Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (COBRA/ERISA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant improperly claims its
health plan is a "church plan" exempt from COBRA's notice
requirement. Allegedly, Defendant's health plan is not a church
plan and, as, such, Defendant was required to provide Plaintiff and
the putative class members with a COBRA notice that complies with
the law.

In May 2020, the Government extended the deadline to enroll in
COBRA continuation coverage so that no one would lose their medical
coverage during COVID-19. Thus, if Defendant had not opted to
improperly deny it is subject to ERISA/COBRA by application of the
church exemption, the Plaintiff's deadline to enroll would have
been extended indefinitely, or at least until the Government
declared the "National Emergency" related to COVID has ended, says
the suit.

The Defendant, the plan sponsor and de facto plan administrator of
the AdventHealth Connerton Health Savings Plan Employee Benefits
Program ("Adventist Health Plan"), has repeatedly violated ERISA by
failing to provide plan participants with adequate notice, as
prescribed by COBRA, of their right to continue their health
insurance coverage following the occurrence of a qualifying
event.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: 813-229-8712
          E-mail: lcabassa@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com

AETNA LIFE: Bid to Dismiss Lake's Amended Complaint Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled SCOTT LAKE, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and PINELLAS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Defendants, Case No.
8:20-cv-3010-VMC-TGW (M.D. Fla.), the U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, issued an order:

   -- denying the School Board's Motion to Dismiss Amended
      Complaint; and

   -- granting in part and denying in part Aetna's Motion to
      Dismiss Amended Complaint and to Strike.

This case arose out of a denial of insurance coverage for Lake's
prostate cancer treatment. Specifically, Aetna denied Lake's
request to pre-authorize proton beam radiation therapy because his
plan "does not cover experimental or investigational services
except under certain circumstances." Lake appealed this denial a
number of times--both to Aetna and to the School Board, the plan
sponsor with whom Lake contracted--but none of those appeals
succeeded. Despite these denials, Lake still underwent proton beam
radiation therapy.

On Oct. 30, 2020, Lake initiated this putative class action in
state court. On Dec. 17, 2020, the case was removed to this Court
on the basis of Class Action Fairness Act diversity jurisdiction.
Both the Defendants then moved to dismiss. On March 26, 2021, the
Court granted the School Board's motion, dismissing Lake's claim
for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and granting leave to amend.

On April 21, 2021, Lake filed an amended complaint. In the amended
complaint, Lake seeks to represent a nationwide class of other
similarly situated individuals who were denied coverage by Aetna
for proton beam radiation therapy. Lake also proposes a subclass
for Florida plan participants. The amended complaint includes the
following claims: tortious interference with a contractual
relationship against Aetna (Count I), breach of contract against
the School Board (Count II), and declaratory and injunctive relief
against Aetna (Count III). The amended complaint includes class
allegations against Aetna only.

Now, both the School Board and Aetna move to dismiss the amended
complaint. Aetna also requests that the Court strike the class
allegations. Lake has responded to each Motion, and they are now
ripe for review.

The School Board's Motion to Dismiss

The School Board moves to dismiss Count II--Lake's claim for breach
of contract--arguing that it fails because the allegations in the
amended complaint are expressly contradicted by the School Board's
denial letter. Lake responds that (1) the Court cannot accept the
contents of the denial letter as true at the dismissal stage, and
(2) even assuming the contents of that letter were entirely
truthful and accurate, it raises factual issues that cannot be
resolved by the Court at this stage.

Mr. Lake alleges that the School Board breached its contract for
insurance coverage with him by arbitrarily and wrongfully denying
coverage for proton beam radiation therapy. Lake was allegedly
harmed by this breach because he had a right to receive the
benefits.

The School Board does not argue that Lake has insufficiently pled
the elements of such breach. Rather, it argues that the allegations
in the amended complaint are clearly contradicted by the School
Board's denial letter, which it attaches to its Motion. Thus, the
Court must determine whether it can presently consider the contents
of the denial letter.

Mr. Lake does not take issue with the denial letter being both
central to the complaint and authentic. However, he argues that the
truth of the matters asserted in the self-serving denial letter
that the School Board attaches to its Motion are in dispute, and it
should not be considered by the Court on its Motion.

The Court agrees that the School Board is improperly invoking the
denial letter to prove a disputed fact at this stage. In the
amended complaint, Lake alleges that the School Board breached the
contract by, in part, "relying upon an outdated and arbitrary
'Policy Bulletin' without ever reviewing the medical evidence
submitted by Lake and his providers."

District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington opines that this
attempt to disprove Lake's allegations is premature at the
motion-to-dismiss stage.

The School Board cites to Caldwell v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, ___
F. App'x ____, 2021 WL 1229754 (11th Cir. Mar. 31, 2021), for the
proposition that the contents of the denial letter control, rather
than the allegations in the amended complaint. However, that case
states the rule that when an exhibit attached to the
complaint--rather than to a motion to dismiss--conflicts with the
allegations in the complaint, the exhibit controls, Judge Covington
opines, citing Caldwell, 2021 WL 1229754, at *2 n.2.

Because this argument forms the sole basis for the School Board's
Motion, the Court declines to dismiss Count II.

Aetna's Motion to Dismiss and to Strike

In Aetna's Motion, it seeks dismissal of all of the claims against
it, both for failure to state a claim and for lack of standing.
Aetna also requests that the Court strike Lake's class
allegations.

Aetna argues that Lake "lacks standing to assert a claim against
Aetna because he . . . has failed to articulate a plausible injury
attributable to Aetna which can be remedied by a favorable order."
Lake responds that he has standing to pursue his claims because he
has stated a tortious interference claim, and alleged that Aetna
wrongfully denied his insurance claim for proton beam radiation
therapy.

The Court agrees with Lake that he has standing to pursue his claim
for tortious interference against Aetna. Judge Covington opines
that Lake has adequately alleged an injury in the form of denial of
his proton beam radiation therapy claim by virtue of Aetna's
interference with his insurance contract.

Judge Covington notes that Lake seeks a declaration that he is
entitled to coverage for proton beam radiation therapy. However,
nowhere in the amended complaint does Lake allege that he is
seeking additional proton beam radiation therapy. To the contrary,
Lake alleges only that he has completed his therapy with success.
Thus, Lake seeks a judgment as to Aetna's past conduct--its
previous denial of coverage, and lacks standing to do so, the Judge
holds.

Mr. Lake also lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief for the
same reason, Judge Covington concludes, citing Houston v. Marod
Supermarkets, Inc., 733 F.3d 1323, 1328-29 (11th Cir. 2013). And
even if Lake had standing to pursue an injunction, injunctive
relief is not a proper claim for relief in and of itself, but
rather a remedy that is available upon a finding of liability on a
claim. Accordingly, Count III is dismissed for lack of standing.

Tortious Interference with a Contractual Relationship

Aetna also argues that Count I--Lake's claim for tortious
interference with a contractual relationship--fails because: (1)
Aetna, as claims administrator, was not a stranger to the
transaction, and (2) Lake has not pleaded a single fact to support
his far-fetched theory, instead only parroting the elements of the
tort. Lake responds that "where, as here, a plaintiff alleges that
a 'non-stranger' defendant has acted in bad faith or employed
improper methods to interfere in a contractual relationship, the
defendant's privilege to interfere is limited," and that he has
plausibly pled his claim.

Even assuming that Aetna is not a stranger to the business or
contractual relationship, the Court is not in a position to
determine whether Aetna's conduct was justified or privileged.
Accepting the facts alleged in the amended complaint as true, Aetna
induced the School Board to rely on its unjustified description of
proton beam radiation therapy as experimental or investigational or
not medically necessary, purposely basing these determinations on
outdated medical evidence so as to reduce the amount of proton beam
radiation therapy claims that are approved across all of its plans.
The Court will be in a better position to determine whether Aetna's
conduct was privileged at summary judgment.

The Court finds that Lake has sufficiently pled the remaining
elements of its claim for tortious interference of a contractual
relationship. The amended complaint avers the existence of Lake's
contract for health insurance, that Aetna was aware of the contract
as it administered the insurance plan, that it intentionally
induced the School Board to deny Lake's request for reimbursement
of proton beam radiation therapy despite it being medically
necessary, and that Lake was damaged by that breach.

Nothing more is needed at this stage, and the Court, therefore,
denies the Motion as to Count I.

Class Allegations

Finally, Aetna moves to strike the class allegations, arguing that
(1) Lake lacks standing to assert claims in his own right, and
therefore cannot represent a class, (2) there is no typicality, and
(3) the amended complaint presents individual questions of fact and
law, failing the predominance requirement. Lake responds that
dismissal of his class allegations is premature at this stage and
additional discovery should be permitted. In any case, Lake
contends that his claims are typical of the class, and that
individual questions of fact and law will not predominate.

As to Aetna's first argument, the Court has already found that Lake
has standing to pursue his claim for tortious interference. And,
the Court agrees with Lake that Aetna's request to evaluate the
sufficiency of the class allegations is premature.

With additional fact discovery, the Court cannot say that it would
be impossible for Lake to show that Aetna's directing plan sponsors
to deny claims for proton beam radiation therapy is typical of the
class. Nor is the Court convinced at this stage that it would be
impossible for Lake to meet the predominance requirement.
Therefore, the Defendant's motion to strike class allegations is
denied.

Lastly, Aetna has not argued, let alone demonstrated, that the
class allegations are "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous," Judge Covington holds. Thus, the Motion is denied as
to this relief.

Accordingly, Judge Covington rules that:

   (1) Defendant Pinellas County School Board's Motion to Dismiss
       Amended Complaint is denied;

   (2) Defendant Aetna Life Insurance Company's Motion to Dismiss
       Amended Complaint and to Strike is granted in part and
       denied in part;

   (3) Count III is dismissed for lack of standing; and

   (4) Defendants' answers to the amended complaint were due on
       July 12, 2021.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 28, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/s84mnnk from Leagle.com.


AFTERPAY LTD: Faces Class Action Over Undisclosed Fees, Interest
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Pruett, Esq., of Ballard Spahr LLP, in an article for Mondaq,
reports that Afterpay, a buy-now, pay-later company, is facing a
putative class action lawsuit in a California federal district
court. The complaint alleges that Afterpay misled customers in
representing that its services allowed customers to "pay for
purchases at a later date, with no interest, no fees, and no
hassle" when "there are huge, undisclosed fees and interest
associated with using the service." Afterpay's service allows its
customers to make a purchase on credit and repay the balance by
making four payments over the course of six weeks.

The plaintiff claims that Afterpay did not disclose to its
customers "that overdraft and NSF fees are a likely and devastating
consequence of the use of its service." She alleges that she "had
no idea small, automatic Afterpay repayments could cause $35 bank
fees from [her] bank" or that "Afterpay would process transactions
when [her] accounts had insufficient funds." While acknowledging
that banks, not Afterpay, assess these fees, the plaintiff contends
that "Afterpay misrepresents (and omits facts about) the true
nature, benefits, and risks of its service . . . [including] that
users are at extreme and undisclosed risk of expensive bank fees
when using Afterpay."

The complaint alleges that Afterpay's failure to warn consumers
about the potential risk of banks assessing overdraft and NSF fees
is an unfair and fraudulent act and practice in violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of all Afterpay customers who incurred an
overdraft or NSF fee because of a payment to Afterpay. The relief
sought in the complaint includes injunctive relief, restitution of
fees, disgorgement of allegedly ill-gotten gains, compensatory and
punitive damages, interest, attorney fees, and litigation costs.
[GN]

ALPHABET INC: 9th Cir. Reverses in Part Class Action Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reports that on
June 16, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit reversed in part the dismissal of a putative class action
asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against a technology company and
certain of its executives. In re Alphabet, Inc. Sec. Litig., --
F.3d -- , 2021 WL 2448223 (9th Cir. 2021). Plaintiffs alleged that
the company failed to disclose a security flaw that risked exposing
customer data on its social networking site to third-party
developers without customer consent. The district court granted a
motion to dismiss, determining that the complaint failed to allege
any misrepresentation or omission and failed to adequately allege
scienter. The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that plaintiffs had
adequately alleged actionable misrepresentations and scienter.
However, the Court affirmed the dismissal of certain allegations
that it held were too vague to be actionable.

Plaintiffs' allegations concerned alleged security vulnerabilities
at the company's social networking site which left users' private
data potentially exposed to third-party developers. Id. at *2.
According to plaintiffs, the company had identified the issue and
the company's legal department had even circulated an internal
memorandum detailing the issue and warning that it would likely
trigger regulatory attention and Congressional inquiries if
disclosed. Id. at *4. However, the company allegedly continued to
make generic statements in its securities filings about the
importance of maintaining customer privacy and the risks the
company faced if customer privacy were not maintained, without
disclosing the security issue and while stating that there had been
"no material changes to our risk factors." Id.

The Court held that the company's statements that its "operations
and financial results are subject to various risks and
uncertainties" and that there had been "no material changes to our
risk factors" were sufficiently alleged to be materially misleading
in light of the alleged omission of the security issue. The Court
emphasized that the company was alleged to have made multiple
statements about the harms that could follow from the detection and
disclosure of security vulnerabilities, including regulatory
scrutiny, and the significant consequences that would result from
their disclosure. Id. at *10. The Court also noted the SEC had
published guidance on the disclosure of cybersecurity instances
like the security issue the company faced, which further suggested
the alleged misstatements were material. Id. And the Court
concluded that disclosures about risks that "could" or "may" unfold
were sufficiently alleged to be misleading because a reasonable
investor would not think those risks had already materialized, even
though at the time the statements were made the risks allegedly
already had materialized. Id. at *11.

While the company argued that it had remedied the technical issue
before making the statements in its securities filings, the Court
found that did not alter the analysis because it did not avoid the
implications for lost customer trust if the company already had
revealed customer data for a multi-year period. Id. And while the
company also argued that this issue was not material because the
customer information implicated was not particularly sensitive and
the company's revenue had increased over the period, the Court
explained that a cybersecurity incident can be material if it could
impact how a reasonable investor views the company, regardless of
the immediate financial impact on the company. Id.

The Court further held that plaintiffs sufficiently raised a strong
inference that the company's CFO acted with scienter. Id. at *12.
Although the Court noted that there was no specific allegation that
the CFO had received the memorandum detailing the security issue,
"numerous allegations . . . raise the strong inference that [the
CFO] was vitally concerned with [the company's] operations," made
"key operating decisions," received weekly reports of operating
results, and approved a plan to shut down the social networking
site due to the security concerns. Id. at *13. The Court concluded
that the alternative, that the CFO was not aware of the largest
data security vulnerability in the company's history at a time of
intense regulatory scrutiny of such vulnerabilities, was not
plausible. Id. The Court also reasoned that there was a strong
inference the company intentionally did not disclose this
information in order to avoid or delay the impacts disclosure was
expected to have on regulatory scrutiny, public criticism, and loss
of consumer confidence. Id. The Court further explained that the
inference of scienter was sufficient even in the absence of
allegations about suspicious stock sales or confidential witness
statements. Id.

The Court then briefly explained why various other challenged
statements were not actionable. For example, the Court determined
that a statement the company's head of investor relations made in
earnings calls referring investors to the company's securities
filings did not plausibly offer any assurance that the state of
affairs at the company was different than what actually existed.
Id. at *14. The Court further concluded that statements such as
that the company was "engaged" in becoming compliant with new data
privacy laws, and "has a longstanding commitment to ensuring both
that our users share their data only with developers they can
trust, and that they understand how developers will use that data,"
amounted merely to "vague and generalized commitments, aspirations,
or puffery." Id. The Court also noted that the company's refusal to
testify in Congress did not amount to a misleading statement
actionable under the securities laws. Id.

Lastly, the Court reversed the district court's sua sponte
dismissal of plaintiffs' claims under Rule 10b-5(a) and (c), noting
that defendants had not targeted those claims in their motion to
dismiss. The Court also rejected defendants' argument that Rule
10b-5(a) and (c) claims cannot overlap with Rule 10b-5(b). Id. at
*15 (citing Lorenzo v. SEC, 139 S. Ct. 1094, 1101-02 (2019)). [GN]

AMCO INSURANCE: B and F Appeals Insurance Class Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff B and F Enterprises Northwest, LLC filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit entitled B AND F ENTERPRISES
NORTHWEST, LLC dba BAKE'S PLACE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-00272-BJR, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington, Seattle.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 10, 2021, the
lawsuit is a class action against the Defendant for breach of
insurance contract.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has refused to pay the
Plaintiff's losses and expenses resulting from the interruption of
the Plaintiff's business by COVID-19 and/or orders. The Defendant
issued all risk insurance policies to the Plaintiff, including a
businessowners policy and related endorsements, insuring the
Plaintiff's property and business, and providing related coverages.
The policy coverages issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff
include Business Income Coverage, Extra Expense Coverage, Extended
Business Income Coverage, and Civil Authority Coverage. The
Defendant denied the Plaintiff's claim for insurance benefits and
made no meaningful investigation of its claim or its loss, the suit
says.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order and Judgment
dated June 1, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case
with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as B and F Enterprises Northwest,
LLC v. AMCO Insurance Company, Case No. 21-35501, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 25,
2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant B and F Enterprises Northwest, LLC Mediation
Questionnaire was due July 2, 2021;

   -- Appellant B and F Enterprises Northwest, LLC opening brief is
due on August 24, 2021;

   -- Appellee AMCO Insurance Company answering brief is due on
September 23, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant B AND F ENTERPRISES NORTHWEST, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, DBA
Bake's Place, is represented by:

          Ian S. Birk, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Irene M. Hecht, Esq.
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.   
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          E-mail: ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  ihecht@kellerrohrback.com
                  lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com  

Defendant-Appellee AMCO INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by:

          Robert M. Sulkin, Esq.
          Malaika Eaton, Esq.  
          MCNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN, PLLC
          600 University Street
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 467-1816
          E-mail: rsulkin@mcnaul.com
                  meaton@mcnaul.com

AMERIPRISE ‎FINANCIAL: Locke Lord Attorney Discusses Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Brinkman, Esq., of Locke Lord LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that on June 3, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit held that a district court should ‎have
stricken the plaintiff's class action allegations at the pleading
stage. Donelson v. Ameriprise ‎Financial Services, Inc., 999 F.3d
1080 (8th Cir. 2021). The decision indicates when class action
‎defendants should consider deploying what is typically a
disfavored procedural mechanism to ‎neutralize a class action
before discovery begins.‎

Background
In Donelson, the plaintiff sued Ameriprise Financial Services for
securities fraud and breach of ‎fiduciary duty after his stock
broker mishandled his investment account. Although the plaintiff's
‎claims turned on oral misrepresentations requiring individual
proof of reliance (which almost always ‎preclude class
treatment), plaintiff brought suit as a class action on behalf of
all customers who ‎experienced similar improprieties --ostensibly
to avoid the arbitration clause in his account ‎agreement, which
required him to arbitrate all disputes with Ameriprise except for
class actions.‎

Ameriprise moved to strike the plaintiff's class allegations under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) -- which permits ‎a court to strike "any
redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter" -- and to
compel ‎arbitration. The trial court denied the motions, but the
Eighth Circuit reversed. The appellate court ‎held that the trial
court abused its discretion by denying Ameriprise's motion to
strike because (1) "it ‎was apparent from the pleadings that
[plaintiff] could not certify a class," and (2) "the class
allegations ‎were all that stood in the way of compelling
arbitration."‎

Analysis
Donelson is an unusual endorsement of what is typically a
"disfavored" practice in federal court. It ‎also deepens a split
among federal courts about whether a court can strike class
allegations at the ‎pleadings stage, before the plaintiff moves
for class certification. While some federal courts have ‎stricken
class allegations before class discovery, Pilgrim v. Universal
Health Card, LLC, 660 F.3d 943, ‎‎949 (6th Cir. 2011), others
have held that doing so is premature, Francis v. General Motors,
LLC, 504 ‎F. Supp. 3d 659 (E.D. Mich. 2020).

The critical task for defendants will be discerning when it is
"apparent from the pleadings that plaintiff ‎cannot certify a
class." That sort of pleading will be rare. In many cases, the
plaintiff's legal and ‎factual theories will not be sufficiently
developed in the pleadings to allow a defendant to ‎demonstrate,
based on the allegations alone, that class treatment is clearly
impossible. In Donelson, ‎Ameriprise could make the required
showing because the plaintiff's claims relied on individualized
‎oral misrepresentations made to the plaintiff by his broker. In
most putative class actions, however, ‎plaintiffs allege some
common course of action by the defendant that, on its face, might
be ‎susceptible to common proof.‎

Donelson also indicates that moving to strike class allegations
would be most prudent only when ‎doing so will dispose of the
entire case. In Donelson, for example, the court was obviously
‎influenced by the fact that the plaintiff's class allegations
were the only thing standing in the way of ‎arbitration. It would
have been inefficient, the court said, to needlessly force the
parties to remain in ‎court when they previously decided to
arbitrate. Moving to strike class allegations may also be a
‎viable strategy when the named plaintiff's damages are so small
that the case will not proceed on an ‎individual basis.‎ [GN]

APPLE INC: Appeals Ruling in Hazlitt BIPA Suit to Seventh Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Apple Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in
the lawsuit styled ROSLYN HAZLITT, JANE DOE, by and through next
friend JOHN DOE, RICHARD ROBINSON, and YOLANDA BROWN, on behalf of
themselves and all other persons similarly situated, known and
unknown v. APPLE INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-00421-NJR, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges Apple violated the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy
Act (BIPA) by collecting, possessing, and profiting from the
biometric identifiers and biometric information of Illinois
citizens -- specifically, scans of face geometry -- via the Photos
software application on Apple's phones, tablets, and computers.

Apple Inc. sought permission to appeal the district court's
November 12, 2020 order, which remanded to state court a BIPA claim
that should have been dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Apple said the court correctly observed that
the theory on which the claim was based was not cognizable under
BIPA, but mistakenly treated the Plaintiffs' failure to state a
claim as a lack of standing. As a result, the court sent the claim
back to Illinois state court instead of dismissing it outright.
This erroneous disposition implicates a legal question, albeit one
that can be resolved easily under well-established principles
demarcating Rule 12(b)(6) issues from Article III standing issues.


The Defendant now seeks a review of the Court's Order dated
November 12, 2020 and June 14, 2021, granting in part and denying
in part its motion to dismiss the case. The orders held that the
Plaintiffs' claim in Count III under BIPA section 15(c) is remanded
to the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and Defendant Apple Inc.'s
motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing and for failure
to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) as
to Counts I and II is denied.

The appellate case is captioned as ROSLYN HAZLITT, JANE DOE, BY AND
THROUGH NEXT FRIEND JOE DOE, RICHARD ROBINSON, AND YOLANDA BROWN,
ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHER PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
KNOW AND UNKNOWN, Plaintiffs-Respondents v. APPLE INC.,
Defendant-Petitioner, Case No. 21-8019, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on June 24, 2021.[BN]

Defendant-Petitioner Apple Inc. is represented by:

          Stanley J. Panikowski, Esq.
          DLA Piper LLP (US)
          401 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101-4297
          Telephone: (619) 699-2700

               - and -

          Raj N. Shah, Esq.
          Eric M. Roberts, Esq.
          DLA Piper LLP (US)
          444 West Lake Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60606-0089
          Telephone: (312) 368-4000
          E-mail: raj.shah@dlapiper.com
                  eric.roberts@dlapiper.com

ARIZONA TILE: Deadline to File Class Status Bid Set for Nov. 9
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDGAR MARISCAL,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. ARIZONA TILE, LLC, an unknown business
entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
8:20-cv-02071-JLS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L.
Staton entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation to extend
Plaintiff's deadline to file motion for class certification.

The Parties shall file and brief the Motion for Class Certification
according to the following schedule:

   -- Last Day to File a Motion         November 9, 2021
      for Class Certification:

   -- Last Day to File Opposition       December 7, 2021
      to Motion for Class
      Certification:

   -- Last Day to File Reply in         January 4, 2022
      Support of Motion for
      Class Certification

Arizona Tile wholesales construction materials. The Company offers
granite, marble, limestone, travertine, slate and onyx slabs.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eEn1Wk at no extra charge.[CC]

ARIZONA: Compelled to Produce Withheld Documents in Toomey Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Leslie A. Bowman of the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona grants the Plaintiff's motion to compel
production of documents in the lawsuit captioned Russell B. Toomey,
Plaintiff v. State of Arizona; Arizona Board of Regents, d/b/a
University of Arizona, a governmental body of the State of Arizona;
et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 19-0035-TUC-RM (LAB) (D. Ariz.).

The Plaintiff filed on May 20, 2021, a motion to compel production
of documents. Defendants State of Arizona, Andy Tobin, and Paul
Shannon ("the State Defendants") filed a response on June 4, 2021.
The Plaintiff filed a reply on June 10, 2021.

Mr. Toomey served on the State Defendants his First Request for
Production on Dec. 8, 2020. Request Nos. 1, 3, and 9 specifically
sought documents and information concerning the State's health
insurance plan Exclusion for gender reassignment surgery and the
decision-making behind it. The State Defendants withheld 85
documents on the basis of attorney-client privilege.

In the pending motion, Toomey seeks an order from this Court
compelling production of those documents. The State Defendants
maintain that the Exclusion is not the product of intentional
discrimination. It exists, they say, because they were advised by
counsel that it is legal and nothing in the law requires the
State's health insurance plan to cover gender reassignment surgery.
By allegedly relying on this legal advice as evidence that they
harbored no discriminatory intent, the State Defendants have waived
by implication the attorney-client privilege as to that advice. The
Court does not reach Toomey's alternate arguments.

Discussion

The Plaintiff in this action, Russell B. Toomey, is an associate
professor employed at the University of Arizona. He receives health
insurance from a self-funded health plan ("the Plan") provided by
the State of Arizona. The Plan generally provides coverage for
medically necessary care. There are coverage exclusions, however,
one of which is for "gender reassignment surgery."

Mr. Toomey is a transgendered man. He has a male gender identity,
but the sex assigned to him at birth was female. Toomey has been
living as a male since 2003. His treating physicians have
recommended that he receive a hysterectomy as a medically necessary
treatment for his gender dysphoria. Toomey sought medical
preauthorization for a total hysterectomy, but he was denied under
the Plan's exclusion for gender reassignment surgery.

On Jan. 23, 2019, Toomey brought the pending class action in which
he argues the Plan's Exclusion is sex discrimination under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and a violation of the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The action is currently in the discovery stage. On Dec. 8, 2020,
Toomey served his First Request for Production on the State
Defendants seeking documents calculated to reveal the reason why
the Plan contains an exclusion for gender reassignment surgery. The
State Defendants produced a privilege log identifying 85 documents
withheld "on the basis of attorney-client privilege."

In the pending motion, Toomey moves to compel the production of
these documents pursuant to Rule 37(a)(3)(B) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. He asserts that the State Defendants implicitly
waived the attorney-client privilege by asserting and relying on
legal advice as a defense to the charge that discriminatory intent
motivated their decision to maintain the Exclusion, effectively
placing this legal advice at issue. He further argues that the
State Defendants waived the privilege by sharing that legal advice
with the Governor's office and himself.

In this case, the State Defendants maintain that the Exclusion is
not the product of intentional discrimination. It exists in large
part, they say, because the State Defendants were advised that it
is legal and nothing in the law requires the Plan to cover gender
reassignment surgery. By allegedly relying on this legal advice to
explain their actions, the State Defendants have waived by
implication their attorney-client privilege as to that advice. The
State Defendants argue generally that they never raised an "advice
of counsel defense." The record, however, indicates otherwise.

In their answer to Toomey's interrogatories, the State Defendants
stated that that the Plan contains the Exclusion, in part, because
the State concluded, under the law, that it was not legally
required to change its health plan to provide such coverage under
either Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or under the Equal
Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. The State Defendants explicitly asserted that, "The
legal advice that the State received regarding this issue is
covered by the attorney-client privilege."

The State Defendants specifically identified two memoranda, one
from Marie Isaacson, dated Aug. 3, 2016, and one from outside legal
counsel Fennimore Craig, P.C., dated July 20, 2016, as documents
covered by attorney-client privilege that were "considered,
reviewed, or relied on by Defendants relating to the Exclusion." In
their respective depositions, Marie Isaacson, Director of the
Benefits Service Division of the Arizona Department of
Administration (ADOA) from 2015-2018, and Scott Bender, Plan
Administration Manager of the ADOA from 2015-present, testified
that "the deciding factor" or the "primary reason" for the
continuing existence of the Exclusion was that the law did not
require gender reassignment surgery to be covered.

Mr. Toomey cannot adequately dispute this proffered reason for the
actions of the State Defendants, that it was legal, without access
to the legal advice that the State Defendants received, Judge
Bowman notes. "Fairness" dictates that they disclose that legal
advice to him.

In their response, the State Defendants argue that they never
asserted an advice of counsel defense. They did say that the Plan
contains the Exclusion "because the State concluded, under the law,
that it was not legally required to change its health plan." But
this was simply their understanding of what the law was at the time
of the decision to expand transgender benefits while continuing to
exclude surgeries. Their understanding, they assert, was not
necessarily based on the advice of counsel. The Court is not
convinced.

If the State Defendants' understanding of the law was based, say,
on a newspaper article, then they would not have affirmatively
stated that the legal advice that the State received regarding this
issue is covered by the attorney-client privilege, Judge Bowman
states. The attorney-client privilege does not cover newspaper
articles. Moreover, the State Defendants specifically identified
two memoranda as documents covered by attorney-client privilege
that were "considered, reviewed, or relied on by Defendants
relating to the Exclusion." The Court concludes that the State
Defendants' understanding of the law was based in large part on
advice from counsel.

With regard to the memoranda, the State Defendants insist that they
"did not disclose any legal advice contained therein, did not
indicate there was a recommendation from legal counsel, and did not
state that the State Defendants relied on any advice of legal
counsel."

The Court is not persuaded. The State Defendants implied that they
received legal advice on the propriety of the Exclusion from
counsel and relied on that legal advice when they decided to
establish or maintain the Exclusion even if they did not say so
explicitly. "Fairness" dictates that Toomey is entitled to discover
what that advice was. That advice is not shielded from discovery by
the attorney-client privilege, Judge Bowman points out.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion to compel production of
documents is granted. The State of Arizona, Andy Tobin, and Paul
Shannon (The State Defendants) will "produce all the documents
currently withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege they
received on the legality of the Exclusion." The State Defendants
will comply with this order within 14 days of service.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 28, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/yc3tkw6c from Leagle.com.


ASPEN AMERICAN: Court Dismisses Berkseth-Rojas Suit w/ Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIE JO BERKSETH-ROJAS
DDS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. ASPEN AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:20-cv-00948-D (N.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater entered an order granting
Aspen's motion to dismiss class action with prejudice.

The court holds that Dr. Berkseth-Rojas has failed to plead a
plausible claim for breach of the Sue and Labor provision. As Aspen
points out, this provision is best characterized as an obligation
on Dr. Berkseth-Rojas, not on Aspen. The heading of the section in
which the Sue and Labor provision appears is entitled "Duties in
the Event of Damage," and it imposes other obligations on Dr.
Berkseth-Rojas, such as to "[n]otify the police if a law may have
been broken" and "[c]ooperate with us in the investigation or
settlement of the claim." As one court has noted, this type of
provision is "plainly not a coverage provision." The court,
therefore, grants Aspen's motion to dismiss to the extent it seeks
dismissal of Dr. Berkseth-Rojas' breach of contract claims.

The Plaintiff Christie Jo Berkseth-Rojas DDS ("Dr. Berkseth-Rojas")
brings this action against defendant Aspen American Insurance
Company to recover under an "all risk" commercial property
insurance policy for losses to her dental practice suffered due to
the COVID-19 pandemic. The Policy provided business interruption
coverage for certain losses to Dr. Berkseth-Rojas' dental practice
occurring during the period December 6, 2019 to December 6, 2020.
Dr. Berkseth-Rojas alleges that, due to COVID-19 and related
executive orders limiting non-essential services (the "Orders"),
she suffered direct physical loss of or damage to her dental
practice "because COVID-19 made the property unusable in the way
that it had been used before COVID-19." She maintains that the
Policy provides coverage under four provisions: the Practice
Income, Extra Expense, Civil Authority, and Sue and Labor
provisions.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hR3Jz9 at no extra charge.[CC]


BALTIMORE, MD: Court Orders Unemployment Benefits to Continue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fox5News reports that the legal battle over unemployment benefits
in Maryland is expected to continue.

Judge Larry Fletcher-Hill of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City
granted a preliminary injunction on July 13, ordering federal
unemployment programs to continue statewide.

Governor Larry Hogan announced his decision on June 1 to opt-out of
the federal programs and benefits at the beginning of July, before
two separate lawsuits were filed against him and Maryland Secretary
of Labor Tiffany Robinson.

By July 13, the Unemployed Workers Union -- the group behind the
first lawsuit filed against Hogan and Robinson -- announced it will
be updating its class-action lawsuit this week.

"We're gonna keep fighting," said Alec Summerfield, a pro-bono
attorney for the Unemployed Workers Union. "We're filing an amended
complaint this week."

Summerfield, at a press conference on July 13, said the Unemployed
Workers Union is hoping for an emergency hearing to have thousands
of claims processed, adjudicated, and paid-out by the Maryland
Department of Labor.

"We will continue to move forward until every single unemployed
worker in Maryland receives every single penny they are owed," said
Summerfield. "We will not stop. We will not rest until justice is
entirely served."

Alec Summerfield, pro-bono attorney who is working on the case, is
speaking now.

"The litigation is not finished."

Says there are tens of thousands who have not received any
unemployment benefits.

The Unemployed Workers Union picketed outside of a Maryland
Department of Labor office building in downtown Baltimore demanding
an emergency meeting with Secretary Robinson.

In response to that picket-line, Governor Larry Hogan's
Communications Director, Mike Ricci, said in a statement:

We have paid more than $13 billion in benefits and processed 97% of
claims, while dealing with more than 1 million potentially
fraudulent claims. As for the remaining claims, the vast majority
are in the complicated adjudication process required by the General
Assembly. [GN]

BARCLAYS PLC: Hearing to Continue on Forex Price-Fixing Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
California News times reports that forex price-fixing allegations
continue to plague large banks, as two London courts have
considered separate cases related to the allegations that dealers
have stripped customers in currency transactions in the past.

The ECU group of the asset management company Blame HSBC The number
of frauds and illegal acts in the High Court trial that began in
mid-June. HSBC denies cheating.

The potential GBP1 billion class proceeding was one of the first
US-style proceedings filed on behalf of pension funds and asset
managers against Barclays, Citibank, Royal Bank of Scotland, JP
Morgan and UBS. Most of the claims are concentrated in the alleged
cartel. They are called "Three Way Banana Split" and "Essex
Express".

The Court of Appeals for Competition will decide whether to approve
the application allowing the proceedings to proceed and the
proposed class representatives. The bank has blocked the
proceedings of the class action proceedings and has asked the court
that any claim should be an opt-in proceeding. The bank declined to
comment.

Whether the referee approves a collective action led by Philip
Evans, a former investigative chairman of the UK's Competitive
Markets Authority, backed by the actions of law firm Housefeld or
its rivals, as compared to the "Beauty Parade." Should be decided
by Michael O'Higgins, a former chairman of the pension regulator.
O'Higgins is backed by law firm Scott + Scott, who secured a $ 2.3
billion US settlement from 15 banks as part of a class action
foreign exchange proceeding.

Banks have paid more than $ 12 billion in fines after the
allegations that dealers systematically manipulated foreign
exchange rates over the years first surfaced. Banks continue to
fight complaints, but traders involved in the currency rigging
scandal are much better off with US authorities withdrawing the
proceedings against two former staff.

The court's claim is one of the first proceedings filed under the
Consumer Rights Act of 2015, which allows a US-style class action
to be filed in alleged violations of competition law. This allows
the representative to file a proceeding on behalf of the
plaintiff's entire class, except for those who actively choose to
opt out of the proceeding.

Oh Higgins told the referee on July 12 that he wanted to lead the
claim because "fair competition is essential for responsible
capitalism and the free market must be a fair market." He said the
cartel, which is said to be at the center of the proceedings,
"needs to hold the proposed class, which is held for explanation."
[of claimants] I was compensated. "

Evans said he was involved in several previous attempts to file a
class action proceeding and was "enthusiastic" about the 2015 law
allowing class action proceedings.

Both claims are supported by the proceeding funders who fund the
proceedings in exchange for some of the final compensation. Evans
has formed an advisory board that includes Professor Joseph
Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist. In contrast, Ohiggins
has an advisory board that includes former Court of Appeal Judge
Sir Christopher Clark.

The hearing will continue. [GN]

BIG DEAL: Faces Graham Suit Over CBD Products' Deceptive Marketing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Darren Graham, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Big Deal Ventures LLC d/b/a The CBD Skincare Co., Case
No. 608810/2021 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., July 13, 2021) seeks to
remedy the deceptive and misleading business practices of Big Deal
with respect to the marketing and sales of Defendant Big Deal
Ventures CBD products.

The CBD products include CBD Skincare Co. CBD Infused 100 mg
Exfoliating Cleanser Concentrate; CBD Skincare Co. CBD Infused
Conditioner; CBD Skincare Co. CBD Infused Shampoo; CBD Skincare Co.
CBD Infused Lavender & Eucalyptus Muscle Rub; CBD Skincare Co.
Black Magic Woman Body Bar; CBD Skincare Co. Harvest Moon Body Bar;
CBD Skincare Co. Citrus Lavender Body Bar; CBD Skincare Co. Purple
Haze Body Bar; CBD Skincare Co. Green Power Body Bar; CBD Skincare
Co. Creme de la Terre; CBD Skincare Co. CBD Infused Shea Butter
Foot & Body Therapy; and CBD Skincare Co. Shea Honey Oat Body Bar.

The Defendant manufactures, sells, and distributes the Products
using a marketing and advertising campaign centered around claims
that appeal to health-conscious consumers, i.e., that its Products
are "Naturally Healing;" however, Defendant's advertising and
marketing campaign is false, deceptive, and misleading because the
Products contain non-natural, synthetic ingredients.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated ("Class Members") relied
on Defendant's misrepresentations that the Products are "Naturally
Healing" when purchasing the Products. The Plaintiff and Class
Members paid a premium for the Products based upon their "Naturally
Healing" representations. Given that Plaintiff and Class Members
paid a premium for the Products based on Defendant's
misrepresentations, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered an injury
in the amount of the premium paid, alleges the suit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
          Joseph Lipari, Esq.
          Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
          270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1800
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (845) 483-7100
          Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
          E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com
                  markowitzd@thesultzerlawgroup.com

BLACKSTAR FIBER: Misclassifies Inspectors, Roberts Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
TONEY ROBERTS, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLACKSTAR FIBER COMPANY, LP,
Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-00654 (W.D. Tex., July 9, 2021) is a
collective action complaint brought against the Defendant asserting
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as an inspector from
approximately August 2019 to March 2021.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated inspectors were misclassified by the Defendant as exempt
from overtime compensation under the FLSA. Despite working more
than 40 hours per week, the Defendant did not compensate them for
the overtime hours they performed work for the Defendant at the
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, added the suit.

Blackstar Fiber Company, LP provides inspection staffing services
to its customers in the oil and gas industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Beatriz-Sosa Morris, Esq.
          SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
          5612 Chaucer Drive
          Houston, TX 77005
          Tel: (281) 885-8844
          Fax: (281) 885-8813
          E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com

BOBSHAN ENTERTAINMENT: Linwood Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
JELICIA LINWOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BOBSHAN ENTERTAINMENT, INC d/b/a ELEGANCE CABARET and
ROBERT EBBERT, Case No. 4:21-cv-00851-P (N.D. Tex., July 14, 2021)
alleges causes of action against the Defendants for damages due to
the Defendants evading the mandatory minimum wage and overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, illegally absconding
with the Plaintiff's tips and demanding illegal kickbacks including
in the form of "House Fees."

These causes of action arise from Defendants' willful actions while
the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in the preceding
three-year period to the filing of this Complaint. During their
time being employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff was allegedly
denied minimum wage payments and denied overtime as part of
Defendants' scheme to classify Plaintiff and other
dancers/entertainers as "independent contractors."

The Defendants operate an adult-oriented entertainment facility
located at 2412 E Belknap St, Fort Worth, TX 76111 and operates
under the name "Elegance Cabaret."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          Leigh Montgomery Texas
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77066
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
          E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
                  leigh@ellzeylaw.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Alexander, Esq.
          MARK A. ALEXANDER, P.C.
          5080 Spectrum, Suite 850E
          Addison, TX 75001
          Telephone: (972) 544-6968
          Facsimile: (972) 421-1500
          E-mail: mark@markalexanderlaw.com

BOND PHARMACY: Denning Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY DENNING, ET AL., v.
BOND PHARMACY, INC., d/b/a ADVANCED INFUSION CARE, ADVANCED
INFUSION SOLUTIONS, and AS HEALTHCARE, Case No.
2:21-cv-00774-JTM-DMD (E.D. La.), Plaintiff Denning asks the Court
to enter an order certifying this matter as a class action pursuant
to Fed. Rule Civ. P. Rule 23(c)(1), and avers the following:

"All persons in the state of Louisiana whose treating physicians
prescribed pain medication therapy through a targeted drug delivery
therapy, which drug or pharmaceutical was provided by Bond
Pharmacy, Inc. d/b/a/ Advanced Infusion Care, Advanced Infusion
Solutions, and AIS Healthcare ("AIS") to plaintiffs’ treating
physicians/healthcare providers, and which persons entered into the
agreements identified as a "Consent/Authorization for Treatment"
and a "Financial Responsibility/Assignment of Benefits/Release of
Medical Information/NOPP and Patient Rights and Responsibilities
Acknowledgment/Non-Assignment of Benefits," during a ten year
period of time prior to the filing of this suit and who were
billed, either personally or through their health insurance
providers, for anything other than the supply of pain medication as
ordered by their treating physicians, including any services
neither performed nor identified in the referenced agreements."

Bond Pharmacy provides home intravenous solutions and pharmacy
services.

A copy of the Plaintiff Denning's motion to certify class dated
July 13, 2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://bit.ly/3zhQlKeat no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roberta L. Burns, Esq.
          Sidney D. Torres, Esq.
          Beau F. Camel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          SIDNEY D. TORRES, III, APLC
          8301 W. Judge Perez Dr., Suite 303
          Chalmette, LA 70043
          Telephone: (504) 271-8422
          Facsimile: (504) 271-1961
          E-mail: storres@torres-law.com
                  rburns@torres-law.com
                  bcamel@torres-law.com

               - and -

          Timothy R. Richardson, Esq.
          RICHARDSON LAW GROUP
          422 E. Lockwood Street, 2nd Floor
          Covington, LA 70433
          Telephone: (985) 898-0483
          E-mail: tim@rlgroup-law.com

CALIFORNIA: Saddozai v. Atchley Dismissed With Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California issued an order of dismissal
with leave to amend in the lawsuit titled SHIKEB SADDOZAI,
Plaintiff v. M. B. ATCHLEY., et al., Defendants, Case No. 21-01169
BLF (PR) (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff, a state prisoner, filed the instant pro se civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against prison
officials at Salinas Valley State Prison ("SVSP"), where he is
currently confined, and the Director of the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). The Plaintiff's motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis will be addressed in a
separate order.

Class Action

As a preliminary matter, the Court addresses the Plaintiff's
attempt to bring this action on behalf of himself, as well as
several other inmates, who appear to be similarly situated. The
Court will construe this attempt as a request for class
certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The prerequisites to maintenance of a class action are that (1) the
class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,
(2) there are common questions of law and fact, (3) the
representative party's claims or defenses are typical of the class
claims or defenses, and (4) the representative party will fairly
and adequately protect the class interests. Pro se prisoner
plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives able to fairly
represent and adequately protect the interests of the class, Judge
Freeman notes, citing Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407
(4th Cir. 1975).

Here, the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, and therefore cannot
adequately represent the intended class, Judge Freeman opines.
Accordingly, his request for class certification is denied. The
other "plaintiffs" listed on the complaint will be removed from
this action. Judge Freeman states that if they desire to pursue any
claims on their own, they must do so by each filing separate
actions.

The Plaintiff's Claims

The Plaintiff claims that since Oct. 1, 2020, to the present, he
has been assigned to Housing Unit-A3 and is physically forced to be
trapped and exposed to serious risk of actual impending dangerous
harm and injury, due to gross deficiencies and repeated failures of
prison officials to replace or fix structural integrity damages to
prison ceiling, roof, walls and cell living quarters. These
conditions resulted in water flooding the units and cells, causing
mold, fungus, infestation and vermin. The Plaintiff claims he is
not provided with cleaning supplies and equipment. He claims these
conditions provide inhabitable, inadequate, and unprotected shelter
for Eighth Amendment purposes, and violates prison rules, civilian
safety codes, establishing deliberate indifference, denial of equal
protection, equal rights and treatment, in violation of the state
and federal constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth,
and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as prison guidelines under
California Code of Regulations Title 15 sections 3300, 3301, 3303.

The Plaintiff names these as Defendants: Capt. L. M. Pennisi Jr.,
Warden M. B. Atchley, and the Director of the CDCR. He seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as damages.

Eighth Amendment

The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but neither
does it permit inhumane ones. The treatment a prisoner receives in
prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to
scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. The Amendment also imposes
duties on these officials, who must provide all prisoners with the
basic necessities of life such as food, clothing, shelter,
sanitation, medical care and personal safety. A prison official
violates the Eighth Amendment when two requirements are met: (1)
the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, sufficiently serious,
and (2) the prison official possesses a sufficiently culpable state
of mind. Plumbing, which deprives inmates of basic hygiene and
seriously threatens inmates' physical and mental well-being,
amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.

Judge Freeman notes that the Plaintiff's description of inhumane
living conditions implicates the Eighth Amendment. However, the
Plaintiff has failed to state sufficient facts to show that the
named Defendants are individually liable for the violation his
Eighth Amendment rights, Judge Freeman finds. For example, he
merely alleges that Defendant Pennisi was the Captain for the
A-Yard Facility. There are no factual allegations establishing that
Defendant Pennisi knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the
Plaintiff's health or safety.

Because the Plaintiff has not plead sufficient facts to show that
any subordinate is liable, the Plaintiff's claim against Warden
Atchley is also deficient, Judge Freeman holds. The Plaintiff's
claim that the Warden had notice and knowledge without factual
allegations describing how he came to that knowledge is simply
conclusory. If Warden Atchley was not directly involved in the
deprivation, the Plaintiff must allege sufficient facts showing
that Warden Atchley was aware of both the unconstitutional
conditions, as well as the wrongful conduct of specific
subordinates, and that he failed to act, Judge Freeman explains.
This requires that the Plaintiff first allege sufficient facts
regarding the wrongful conduct of subordinates. If there was no
such wrongful conduct by a subordinate, then the Plaintiff cannot
state a claim against Warden Atchley based on supervisory liability
absent his direct involvement.

The Plaintiff's allegations are insufficient to state an Eighth
Amendment claim against the Director of the CDCR, Judge Freeman
holds. As discussed, an Eighth Amendment claim requires that the
prison official possesses a sufficiently culpable state of mind.
Judge Freeman opines that the Plaintiff's allegations do not
indicate that the Director had personal knowledge of the inhumane
conditions of the Plaintiff's confinement and failed to act.
Rather, the Plaintiff attempts to allege supervisory liability
against the Director based on Warden Atchley's allegedly
unconstitutional conduct.

Based on these, the Plaintiff will be granted leave to file an
amended complaint to attempt to correct the deficiencies described
to state an Eighth Amendment claim based on inhumane conditions.

Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments

The Plaintiff asserts that his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and
Fourteenth Amendments were also violated. However, the complaint
contains insufficient allegations to implicate all the rights under
these Amendments, Judge Freeman finds.

Judge Freeman holds that the Plaintiff's allegations implicate none
of the rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. There are no
allegations of unreasonable searches or seizures to raise Fourth
Amendment issues, nor are any of the Fifth Amendment protections
for criminal proceedings or federal due process and takings clauses
relevant. Furthermore, there are also no allegations indicating
that the Plaintiff was denied due process under the Fourteenth
Amendment. Accordingly, any such claims under these Amendments are
dismissed with leave to amend for the Plaintiff to attempt to state
sufficient facts to support a claim.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff does explicitly allege that the
conditions amount to the "denial of equal protection" and "equal
rights and treatment," which implicate the equal protection clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, Judge Freeman finds that
there are insufficient allegations to support an equal protection
claim. The Plaintiff makes no allegation with respect to what class
of prisoners he belongs and how the treatment he received was
dissimilar to that received by other inmates. The Plaintiff may
attempt to allege sufficient facts to state a cognizable equal
protection claim in an amended complaint.

State Law Claims

The Plaintiff claims that his rights under the equivalent state
constitutional amendments were violated, and that the conditions
violate the "prison guidelines within the meaning of California
Code of Regulations Title 15 Section: 3300; 3301; 3303." Judge
Freeman holds that these claims are not cognizable under Section
1983 because they fail to satisfy the first element, i.e., that a
right secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States was
violated. Accordingly, any violation of the state constitution or
regulations is purely a state law claim.

While the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related
state law claims, United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715
(1966), the Plaintiff fails to state sufficient factual allegations
showing that any named Defendant violated the cited amendments or
regulations. As discussed, the Plaintiff makes only general
allegations regarding the violation of his constitutional rights
without providing specific facts in support. Accordingly, these
state law claims are dismissed with leave to amend. The Plaintiff
may attempt to state sufficient factual allegations to state claims
based on violations of the state constitutional amendments and
regulations in an amended complaint against specific defendants.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Court orders as follows: The Plaintiff's
request for class certification is denied. This matter will proceed
with Mr. Saddozai as the sole plaintiff in this action. All other
individuals named as plaintiffs will be terminated from this
action.

The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend. Within 28 days of
the date this order is filed, the Plaintiff will file an amended
complaint to attempt to correct the deficiencies discussed. The
amended complaint must include the caption and civil case number
used in this order, Case No. C 21-01169 BLF (PR), and the words
"AMENDED COMPLAINT" on the first page. If using the court form
complaint, the Plaintiff must answer all the questions on the form
in order for the action to proceed.

The amended complaint supersedes the original, the latter being
treated thereafter as non-existent. Consequently, claims not
included in an amended complaint are no longer claims and the
Defendants not named in an amended complaint are no longer
defendants.

Failure to respond in accordance with this order in the time
provided will result in the dismissal of this action with prejudice
for failure to state a claim, without further notice to the
Plaintiff.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 28, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/527m4k6b from Leagle.com.


CANADA: Ex-RCMP Member Reacts to Post Over Systemic Racism Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
aptnnews.ca reports that a former Manitoba Mountie who filed a
class action against the RCMP alleging systemic racism in the force
tells APTN News she is troubled by comments contained in an opinion
piece recently posted to the website of the RCMP Veterans'
Association.

"With the residential schools and the police, I think it runs
parallel because we have to remember that the RCMP was part of the
taking of the children," said Marge Hudson, a First Nations woman
who worked as a Mountie for 30 years.

She says it's painful to hear the comments and that she can't
imagine any good that came from residential schools.

"As a statement gatherer for residential school survivors and the
fact that I went to day school and personally was sexually
assaulted by a catholic priest, beaten by nuns . . . . the
goodness? What is the goodness out of that?" Hudson said.

The editorial by Iwona Mooney called for readers to "get on with
life" after residential schools. That was followed up with an email
from the Manitoba association's president.

The article examined residential schools and Canada Day and was
titled "My Canada -- Is it your Canada?" The follow-up email
encouraged members to read a book called From Truth Comes
Reconciliation.

The president of the Manitoba association said, "This book is not
for people who think that the subject of the truth and
reconciliation commission report are too sacred for either
discussion or criticism."

APTN heard from many Indigenous people who were outraged by the
post Including Grand Chief Jerry Daniels of the Southern Chiefs'
Organization who spoke to APTN.

"Obviously we're never really surprised with these sorts of
comments from colonial institutions," he said. "I think that we
were a little disheartened given the fact that multiple reports
have came out stating that the RCMP is an institution that needs to
be transformed and brought into the 21st century."

Retired Mountie Bruce Pitt-Payne shared the article and email with
APTN. He said he was disgusted with the material.

"It was minimized to being institutions of education as opposed to
the oppression that came out in truth and reconciliation
commission," he said. "I was extremely offended by phrases such as
get on with life and stop dwelling on it."

The veterans' association sent us a statement saying the post was
an editorial and not associated with the organization. The post is
scrubbed from their website.

We reached out to the RCMP itself for comment but they didn't get
back to us by publishing time. [GN]

CANON USA: Pushes Data Breach Suit Dismissal for Lack of Standing
------------------------------------------------------------------
natlawreview.com reports that Canon previously wrote about the
proposed class-action lawsuit against Canon USA Inc. that resulted
from a data breach of former and current employees' personal
information. Canon argued in New York federal court that the
plaintiffs lacked standing and that the case should be dismissed.
Canon stated in its memorandum of law that lost or diminished value
of personal information resulting from a ransomware attack is NOT a
cognizable injury that confers Article III standing. Further, Canon
argued in its memorandum that the plaintiffs' allegations merely
suggested a future risk of harm; again, not enough to meet the
Article III requirements for standing.

In addition to Canon's argument that the plaintiffs lacked
standing, Canon also argued that the plaintiffs failed to state
claims upon which relief can be granted. In the complaint, the
plaintiffs alleged that Canon acted negligently. However, Canon
argues that the complaint did not offer any facts to support that
claim.

Further, Canon argued that the invasion of privacy claim also fails
since the "intrusion upon seclusion" theory requires intent,
evidence of which plaintiffs also failed to provide.

Canon will watch the plaintiffs' response and the court's decision
on this issue. [GN]


CANON USA: Seeks Dismissal of Class Action Over Ransomware Attack
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Holland, writing for Bloomberg Law, reports that a proposed
class action against Canon USA Inc. should be thrown out because
the plaintiffs don't have standing to sue in a New York federal
court, the company argued.

Lost or diminished value of personal data stemming from a
ransomware attack isn't a cognizable injury that confers Article
III standing, Canon argued in a memorandum of law filed on July 12
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs didn't immediately respond to
a request for comment.

Canon was sued in December after suffering a ransomware attack.
[GN]

CARLOTZ INC: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 7 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, on Sept. 7 disclosed that a securities class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the
securities of CarLotz, Inc. ("CarLotz" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
LOTZ) from December 30, 2020 through May 25, 2021 (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York alleges violations of the
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased CarLotz securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit CarLotz Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Noah Wiesner toll free at (877)
779-1414 or nwiesner@bernlieb.com

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
defendants made misrepresentations concerning the following: (i)
that, due to a surge in inventory during the second half of fiscal
2020, CarLotz was experiencing a "logjam" resulting in slower
processing and higher days to sell; (ii) that, as a result, the
Company's gross profit per unit would be negatively impacted; (iii)
that, to minimize returns to the corporate vehicle sourcing partner
responsible for more than 60% of CarLotz's inventory, the Company
was offering aggressive pricing; (iv) that, as a result, CarLotz's
gross profit per unit forecast was likely inflated; (v) that this
Company's corporate vehicle sourcing partner would likely pause
consignments to the Company due to market conditions, including
increasing wholesale prices; and (vi) as a result, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On March 15, 2021, CarLotz announced its fourth quarter and full
year 2020 financial results. During a related conference call, the
Company stated that gross profit and gross profit per unit ("GPU")
"were softer than . . . expected" due to "the surge in inventory
during the quarter and the resulting lower retail unit
profitability." CarLotz also reported that the additional inventory
"created a logjam that resulted in slower processing and higher
days to sell. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.79,
or 8.5%, to close at $8.45 per share on March 16, 2021.

On May 10, 2021, after the market closed, CarLotz announced its
first quarter 2021 financial results revealing that gross profit
per unit fell below expectations. In particular, the Company had
expected retail GPU between $1,300 and $1,500, but reported $1,182.
On this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.94, or 14%, to
close at $5.57 per share on May 11, 2021.

Then, on May 26, 2021, before the market opened, CarLotz announced
an update to its profit-sharing sourcing partner arrangement.
Specifically, CarLotz stated that its "profit-sharing corporate
vehicle sourcing partner informed the Company that, in light of
current wholesale market conditions, it has paused consignments to
the Company." Moreover, this partner "accounted for more than 60%
of the cars sold and sourced" during the first quarter 2021. On
this news, the Company's stock price fell $0.70, or 13.4%, to close
at $4.51 per share on May 26, 2021.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 7, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased CarLotz securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/carlotz-lotz-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-412/apply/
or contact Noah Wiesner toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
nwiesner@bernlieb.com

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact Information:

Noah Wiesner
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.com
(877) 779-1414
Nwiesner@bernlieb.com [GN]

CARLOTZ INC: Kirby McInerney Reminds of September 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP on July 13 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of those who acquired
CarLotz, Inc. ("CarLotz" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: LOTZ)
securities from December 30, 2020 through May 25, 2021, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). Investors have until September 7, 2021 to
apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the
lawsuit.

On March 15, 2021, CarLotz announced its fourth quarter and full
year 2020 financial results. During a related conference call, the
Company stated that gross profit and gross profit per unit ("GPU")
"were softer than . . . expected" due to "the surge in inventory
during the quarter and the resulting lower retail unit
profitability." CarLotz also reported that the additional inventory
"created a logjam that resulted in slower processing and higher
days to sell." On this news, the Company's stock price declined by
$0.79 per share, or approximately 8.5%, from $9.24 per share to
close at $8.45 per share on March 16, 2021.

Then, on May 10, 2021, after the market closed, CarLotz announced
its first quarter 2021 financial results revealing that the GPU
fell below expectations. In particular, the Company had expected
retail GPU between $1,300 and $1,500 but reported $1,182. On this
news, the Company's stock price declined by $0.94 per share, or
approximately 14.4%, from $6.51 per share to close at $5.57 per
share on May 11, 2021.

Then, on May 26, 2021, before the market opened, CarLotz announced
an update to its profit-sharing sourcing partner arrangement.
Specifically, CarLotz stated that its "profit-sharing corporate
vehicle sourcing partner informed the Company that, in light of
current wholesale market conditions, it has paused consignments to
the Company." Moreover, this partner "accounted for more than 60%
of the cars sold and sourced" during first quarter 2021 and "less
than 50% of the cars sold and approximately 25% of cars sourced"
during second quarter 2021 to date. On this news, the Company's
stock price declined by $0.70 per share, or approximately 13.4%, to
close at $4.51 per share on May 26, 2021.

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made
material misrepresentations concerning the following: (1) that, due
to a surge in inventory during the second half of fiscal 2020,
CarLotz was experiencing a "logjam" resulting in slower processing
and higher days to sell; (2) that, as a result, the Company's GPU
would be negatively impacted; (3) that, to minimize returns to the
corporate vehicle sourcing partner responsible for more than 60% of
CarLotz's inventory, the Company was offering aggressive pricing;
(4) that, as a result, CarLotz's GPU forecast was likely inflated;
(5) that this Company's corporate vehicle sourcing partner would
likely pause consignments to the Company due to market conditions,
including increasing wholesale prices; and (6) as a result,
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired CarLotz securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please
contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by
email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact
form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these
matters without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website: http://www.kmllp.com.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts:

Kirby McInerney LLP
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
212-371-6600
https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com [GN]

CARLOTZ INC: Portnoy Law Reminds of September 7 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Portnoy Law Firm advises investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of Carlotz, Inc. (NASDAQ: LOTZ) investors
that acquired shares between December 30, 2020 and May 25, 2021.
Investors have until September 7, 2021 to seek an active role in
this litigation.

Investors are encouraged to contact attorney Lesley F. Portnoy, to
determine eligibility to participate in this action, by phone
310-692-8883 or email, or click here to join the case.

It is alleged in this complaint made misleading and false
statements to the market. In the second half of 2020, CarLotz
suffered from a "logjam" in relation to a surge of inventory.
Carlotz' gross profit per unit suffered in relation to these
inventory problems. Carlotz offered aggressive pricing to customers
in order to minimize returns to its sourcing partner. Carlotz'
gross profit per unit forecast was inflated. Carlotz public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period, based on these facts. Investors suffered damages when
the market learned the truth about CarLotz.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than September
7, 2021.

Please visit our website at https://portnoylaw.com/carlotz/ to
review more information and submit your transaction information.

The Portnoy Law Firm represents investors in pursuing claims
arising from corporate wrongdoing. The Firm's founding partner has
recovered over $5.5 billion for aggrieved investors. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
Admitted CA and NY Bar
lesley@portnoylaw.com
310-692-8883
www.portnoylaw.com [GN]

CASELLA WASTE: Settles Suit Over Ontario County Landfill Odors
--------------------------------------------------------------
FingerLakes1.com reports that a class action lawsuit involving the
Ontario County Landfill has been settled.

However, it's not entirely clear how much those who filed a claim
will be receiving. It's not even clear if those individuals will
receive anything at all.

Ontario County Judge Brian Dennis signed a settlement agreement on
July 14 following a hearing in state Supreme Court, according to
the Finger Lakes Times. The lawsuit was filed in 2019 by the law
firm of Liddle & Dubin, based in Detroit, on behalf of Richard and
Deb Vandemortel and others.

The Vandemortel's claimed that they could not enjoy the use of
their home on Johnson Road in Seneca due to odors from the
landfill.

The West Firm represented Casella in the case. "We believe we could
have defended this case, but the time and the money to do so would
have been more than the cost to settle it and put it behind us," he
said.

Casella will pay $750,000 into a settlement fund and another
$900,000 for odor-control measures at the landfill. [GN]

CELLCO PARTNERSHIP: Adell Appeals Ruling in Breach of Contract Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Lorraine Adell filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit entitled LORRAINE ADELL, etc., Plaintiff v.
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a) VERIZON WIRELESS, Defendant, Case No.
1:18-cv-00623, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio at Cleveland.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 4, 2021, Judge
Christopher A. Boyko of the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division:

    (i) denied Plaintiff Adell's Motion to Vacate July 22, 2020
        Arbitration Award; and

   (ii) granted the Defendant's alternative request to confirm
        the Arbitration Award.

On March 19, 2018, the Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint.
She asserted a Breach of Contract Claim on behalf of a class of
Verizon Wireless customers, seeking damages arising from the
Defendant's practices in connection with the imposition of an
"administrative charge."

The Plaintiff also asserted a claim for Declaratory Relief on
behalf of all Verizon Wireless telephone customers. She contended
that the waiver of an Article III adjudication of her class-wide
Breach of Contract Claim against Defendant is not "voluntary"
because of the inability to refuse Federal Arbitration Association
("FAA") arbitration and still receive the Verizon equipment and
services. She also argued that the arbitration provision in the
wireless phone agreement is not enforceable because of the
"inherent conflict" between arbitration under the FAA and the
express purposes of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
("CAFA").

The Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and to Stay
Proceedings and the Plaintiff moved for Partial Summary Judgment on
her individual Declaratory Judgment claims.

The Court issued an Opinion and Order holding: (1) that the
Plaintiff's consent to arbitrate disputes pursuant to the Verizon
Customer Agreement was knowing and voluntary; (2) that to allow the
Plaintiff to refuse to arbitrate disputes on an individual basis
but still retain the Verizon equipment and services would
necessarily deprive the Defendant of its rights and force Defendant
to accept contractual terms without its voluntary consent; and (3)
that the arbitration provision is enforceable because if Congress
had wanted to override the FAA and ban arbitration class action
waivers, it could have done so manifestly and expressly in the CAFA
statute. Accordingly, the Court granted the Motion to Compel
Arbitration and Stay Proceedings and denied the Plaintiff's Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the order entered by Judge
Boyko.

The appellate case is captioned as Lorraine Adell v. Cellco
Partnership, Case No. 21-3570, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on June 24, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant brief is due on August 3, 2021; and

   -- Appellee brief is due on September 2, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant LORRAINE ADELL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          William Robert Weinstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM R. WEINSTEIN
          199 Main Street, Fourth Floor
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-2205
          E-mail: wrw@wweinsteinlaw.com  

Defendant-Appellee CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, doing business as Verizon
Wireless, is represented by:

          Branden Pasquale Moore, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS
          625 Liberty Avenue, 27th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 667-6000
          E-mail: bmoore@mcguirewoods.com

CHOBANI LLC: Faces Class Suit in New York Over "Fair Trade" Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that Yogurt maker Chobani misleads consumers with
claims of being the first "Fair Trade Certified Dairy" firm when it
actually exploits immigrant workers in "dangerous" and
"marginalized" conditions for "low pay", according to a proposed in
New York federal court. [GN]

CHURCHILL CAPITAL: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of Aug. 30 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Churchill Capital Corp IV
('Churchill' or the 'Company') (NYSE:CCIV) and certain of its
officers, on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired Churchill securitiesbetween January 11, 2021 and February
22, 2021, both dates inclusive (the 'Class Period'). Such investors
are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/cciv.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose that: (1) Lucid was not prepared to deliver vehicles by
spring of 2021; (2) Lucid was projecting a production of 557
vehicles in 2021 instead of the 6,000 vehicles touted in the run-up
to the merger with Churchill; and (3) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/cciv or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss inChurchill
you have until August 30, 2021 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

Contact:

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
Peretz Bronstein or Yael Hurwitz
212-697-6484 | info@bgandg.com [GN]


CITY COMPASSIONATE: Pettibone Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against City Compassionate
Caregivers, Inc. The case is styled as Gabriela Pettibone,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. City
Compassionate Caregivers, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-05800-JAK-PVC
(C.D. Cal., July 19, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

City Compassionate Caregivers --
https://www.citycompassionatecaregivers.com/ -- offers medical and
recreational cannabis in Los Angeles, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW, PA
          1925 Century Park East Suite 1700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (305) 975-3320
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com


CONIFER HOLDINGS: Captain Skrip's 1st Amended Complaint Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting the
Defendant's motion to dismiss first amended complaint in the
lawsuit styled CAPTAIN SKRIP'S OFFICE LLC, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONIFER
HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 20-11291 (E.D. Mich.).

In this putative class action lawsuit, the Plaintiff challenges the
Defendant's denial of insurance coverage for business losses
resulting from governmental orders closing or limiting the
operation of non-essential businesses in an effort to stop the
spread of the 2019 novel coronavirus. The Plaintiff claims that the
Defendant is liable for, and has wrongfully declined coverage for,
these losses under an "all-risk" insurance policy.

In a First Amended Class Action Complaint filed Sept. 8, 2020, the
Plaintiff alleges breach of contract (Count I) and breach of duty
of good faith and fair dealing (Count II), and seeks a declaratory
judgment that the policy provides coverage for the losses claimed
(Count III).

The matter is presently before the Court on the Defendant's motion
to dismiss, filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). The motion has been fully briefed, and the parties have
filed supplemental authority. Finding the facts and legal arguments
sufficiently presented in the parties' submissions, the Court is
dispensing with oral argument pursuant to Eastern District of
Michigan Local Rule 7.1(f). For the reasons set forth in this
Opinion and Order, the Court is granting the Defendant's motion.

Factual Background

The Plaintiff operated as a family-owned restaurant in Port Huron,
Michigan. At some point prior to March 2020, the Plaintiff
purchased an "all-risk" insurance policy ("Policy") from the
Defendant to protect the business from unforeseen events that could
affects its operations and profits. The Plaintiff regularly paid
monthly premiums to the Defendant to maintain the Policy. The
Plaintiff renewed the policy for a one-year term beginning Dec. 28,
2019.

In late March 2020, the State of Michigan took various measures to
respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. On March 23, 2020, Governor
Gretchen Whitmer issued Executive Order 2020-21, directing all
businesses and operations to temporarily suspend in-person services
unless necessary to sustain or protect life.

Such "stay-at-home orders" remained in place until at least Sept.
8, 2020, when the Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint.

Due to the statewide restrictions on movement and operation of
non-essential businesses, the Plaintiff suffered significant loss
of business income, as patrons were initially urged to avoid and,
ultimately, prohibited to dine in its restaurant. By mid-March
2020, the Plaintiff was forced to suspend business operations at
the restaurant.

Having sustained significant financial loss due to the closure, the
Plaintiff sought relief via the Policy by filing a claim with the
Defendant. The Defendant denied the claim. The Defendant relied on
an endorsement to the Policy entitled, "Exclusion of Loss Due to
Virus or Bacteria." The Defendant also asserted that the
Plaintiff's loss of business income was not covered because it was
not a "direct physical loss or damage" to the business property.

The Plaintiff insists that its losses were caused by the entry of
"civil authority" orders, not COVID-19. In fact, the Plaintiff
makes clear that its closure was not the result of any report by
Plaintiff of virus infection in its restaurant, but by mandate of
the state governor's stay-at-home order.

The parties dispute whether the Plaintiff is entitled to coverage
under the terms of the Policy, specifically, whether the Plaintiff
has suffered a covered loss. Even if the Plaintiff's losses
constitute "direct physical loss of or damage to Covered Property,"
the Defendant maintains that the virus exclusion applies. Because
this Court agrees, it focuses there.

The Policy's "Exclusion of Loss Due to Virus or Bacteria" provision
reads, in part: "We will not pay for loss or damage caused by or
resulting from any virus, bacterium or other micro-organism that
induces or is capable of inducing physical distress, illness or
disease."

District Judge Linda V. Parker notes that this language is
unambiguous. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff asserts that the exclusion
is not applicable because its losses resulted from Governor
Whitmer's stay-at-home orders, not COVID-19. However, the Judge
points out, those orders were issued to suppress the spread of
COVID-19. But for COVID-19, the order would not have been issued.

The virus was, thus, an essential link in the chain of causation
leading to the Plaintiff's losses, Judge Parker explains. And the
virus was not a remote link somewhere far down in the chain of
causation. Instead, it was the direct and sole cause of the
Executive Order that required the Plaintiff to close its doors and
suffer losses, she adds, citing Dye Salon, ___ F. Supp. 3d at ___,
2021 WL 493288, at *5. The Policy's "Causes of Loss -- Special
Form" provides that the Defendant will not pay for loss or damage
caused directly or indirectly by any exclusions.

Judge Parker also opines, among other things, that numerous courts
have considered similar virus exclusions in lawsuits brought by
insureds claiming losses due to the forced closure of their
businesses by government orders issued in response to COVID-19.
Almost universally, the courts have held that the exclusions
precluded coverage.

Because the Policy's virus exclusion provision precludes coverage
for the losses the Plaintiff incurred due to the Governor's
executive orders, the Defendant is entitled to judgment in its
favor as a matter of law on the Plaintiff's breach of contract
claim and claim for declaratory relief, Judge Parker holds. She
adds that Michigan does not recognize a cause of action for breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, citing
Fodale v. Waste Mgmt. of Mich., Inc., 718 N.W.2d 827, 841 (Mich.
Ct. App. 2006); therefore, the Defendant is entitled to judgment in
its favor on this claim as well.

Accordingly, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
Complaint is granted.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated June 28,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/ntwz88ff from
Leagle.com.


CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Faces Lam Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP LAM, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. CONTEXTLOGIC, INC., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-05411
(N.D. Cal., July 14, 2021) is a federal securities class action on
behalf of a class seeking to recover compensable damages caused by
the Defendants' violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The class consists of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of ContextLogic., and/or sold put
options of ContextLogic during the period from December 16, 2020
and May 12, 2021, inclusive; and/or all persons who purchased
ContextLogic securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
initial public offering conducted on or about December 16, 2020,
both dates inclusive,

ContextLogic operates as a mobile ecommerce company in Europe,
North America, South America, and internationally. The Company
operates the Wish platform that connects users to merchants and
also provides marketplace and logistics services to merchants. The
Company also generates fees by 19 offering advertising and
logistics services to its merchants, and Wish claims to have a user
base of 100 million monthly active users ("MAUs") and 500,000
merchants.

On November 20, 2020, ContextLogic filed a registration statement
on Form S-1 with the 22 SEC in connection with the IPO, which,
after an amendment, was declared effective by the SEC on 23
December 15, 2020 (the "Registration Statement").

On December 16, 2020, pursuant to the Registration Statement,
ContextLogic's securities began trading on the NASDAQ Global Market
("NASDAQ") under the symbol "WISH." On December 17, 2020,
ContextLogic filed a prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC in
connection with the IPO which incorporated and formed part of the
Registration Statement.

Pursuant to the Offering Documents, ContextLogic issued 46 million
of its shares to the public at the Offering price of $24.00 per
share for approximate proceeds of $1.1 billion.

The Plaintiff contends that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation.

On March 8, 2021, ContextLogic announced its Q4 2020 financial
results. In a press release, the Company stated that, during Q4
2020 its MAUs declined 10% YoY during Q4 to 104 million, primarily
in some emerging markets outside of Europe and North America where
Wish temporarily deemphasized advertising and customer acquisition
as the company worked through logistics challenges it faced earlier
in the year."

On this news, ContextLogic's stock price fell $1.83 per share, or
10%, to close at $15.94 per share on March 8, 2021.

Then, on May 12, 2021, ContextLogic announced its Q1 2021 financial
results. The Company disclosed that its MAUs had declined another
7% to just 101 million. In addition, the Company's forward sales
guidance also fell short, with its Q2 2021 revenue guidance of just
$715 million to $730 million representing a significant departure
from the $759 million the market had been led to expect and far
less than the guidance of $735 to $750 million provided for Q1
2021.

On this news, ContextLogic's stock price fell $3.36 per share, or
29%, to close at $8.11 per share on May 13, 2021.

Plaintiff Phillip Lam purchased ContextLogic securities.

Defendant ContextLogic is a San Francisco, California-based global
ecommerce provider, incorporated under the law of the state of
Delaware. ContextLogic maintains its headquarters at One Sansome
Street, 40th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, and its common stock
is listed on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "WISH."

The Indiviudual Defendants are officers and directors.

The Defendants include PETER SZULCZEWSKI, RAJAT BAHRI, BRETT JUST,
JULIE BRADLEY, ARI MANUEL, JOE LONSDALE, TANZEEN SYED, STEPHANIE
TILENIUS, HANS TUNG, JACQUELINE RESES, GOLDMAN SACHS & CO. LLC,
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC, BOFA SECURITIES, INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL
MARKETS INC., DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC., UBS SECURITIES LLC,
RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, COWEN
AND COMPANY, LLC, OPPENHEIMER & CO. INC., STIFEL, NICOLAUS &
COMPANY, L.L.C., ACADEMY SECURITIES, INC., LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS
LLC, and R. SEELAUS & CO., LLC.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam M. Apton, Esq.
          Nicolas I. Porritt, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          388 Market Street, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 373-1671
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: aapton@zlk.com
                  nporritt@zlk.com

COVINGTON SPECIALTY: Wins Judgment on Pleadings in Till Metro Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled TILL METRO ENTERTAINMENT, d/b/a The Vanguard,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. COVINGTON SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Hampshire
Stock Company, Defendant, Case No. 20-CV-255-GKF-JFJ (N.D. Okla.),
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
grants the Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

The lawsuit is an insurance coverage dispute arising from the
COVID-19 pandemic. On June 4, 2020, Plaintiff Till Metro brought
this putative class action against its insurer, Covington. On July
28, 2020, Till Metro amended its complaint. Attached to the First
Amended Complaint is the relevant insurance policy. Covington moves
for judgment on the pleadings, arguing it has properly denied
coverage for losses caused by COVID-19 and the resultant government
closure orders.

Allegations of the First Amended Complaint

The First Amended Complaint contains the following allegations.
Till Metro owns and operates The Vanguard, a concert venue located
in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Till Metro was forced to suspend or reduce
business at The Vanguard due to COVID-19 and the resultant closure
orders issued by the City of Tulsa and State of Oklahoma.

Covington issued an insurance policy to Till Metro for a policy
period of May 25, 2019, to May 25, 2020. Till Metro has performed
all its obligations under the policy, including paying premiums.
Till Metro submitted a claim for loss under its policy due to the
presence of COVID-19 and the resultant government closure orders.
Covington denied that claim. Till Metro asserts nine (9) causes of
action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated:

   * Count I: Breach of Contract -- Business Income Coverage
   * Count II: Breach of Contract -- Civil Authority Coverage
   * Count III: Breach of Contract -- Extra Expense Coverage
   * Count IV: Breach of Contract -- Sue & Labor Coverage
   * Count V: Declaratory Judgment -- Business Income Coverage
   * Count VI: Declaratory Judgment -- Civil Authority Coverage
   * Count VII: Declaratory Judgment -- Extra Expense Coverage
   * Count VIII: Declaratory Judgment -- Sue & Labor Coverage
   * Count IX: Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Insurance Policy

The insurance policy, attached as Exhibit A to the First Amended
Complaint, contains relevant provisions, including coverage, loss
conditions, duties in the event of loss and exclusions.

Analysis

Covington argues it is entitled to judgment on the pleadings for
three reasons. First, Till Metro has not pleaded any facts which,
if true, would establish that its property suffered a direct
physical loss resulting in physical damage to or alteration of the
property necessitating repairs. Covington argues this is a
prerequisite to coverage under the policy. Second, the policy
contains an exclusion for loss or damage caused by pathogenic
materials, and the COVID-19 virus is, in Covington's view, a
pathogenic material. Third, the policy contains a pollutant
exclusion and the COVID-19 virus is, according to Covington, a
pollutant as that term is defined in the policy.

Till Metro alleges that it is entitled to Business Income, Extra
Expense, and Civil Authority coverage for losses caused by COVID-19
and the resultant government closure orders. Covington disagrees.

In Covington's view, to satisfy the "direct physical loss"
language, Till Metro must allege actual physical damage or
alteration of property requiring repairs. Because Till Metro pleads
no facts showing physical alteration or structural degradation of
the property, in Covington's view, Till Metro fails to allege a
covered loss.

This Court agrees. Applying Oklahoma law and according the policy
language its ordinary plain meaning, "direct physical loss"
unambiguously means property must be materially lost, i.e., the
insured suffers a permanent dispossession of the property, or
damaged to trigger coverage.

For these reasons, Till Metro's contention that its loss of use of
property due to the COVID-19 governmental closure orders
constitutes "direct physical loss" is unavailing, District Judge
Gregory K. Frizzel holds.

Till Metro also alleges that the presence of COVID-19 caused direct
physical loss of or damage to the covered property.

The Court agrees with Chief Judge Robinson's reasoning. The Court
need not accept Till Metro's conclusory allegation that COVID-19
was present in its property. There are no allegations that any
infected person was present in the property, or that any person
became infected at the property. And, even if COVID-19 were
present, it would not constitute a "direct physical loss" because
its presence could be eliminated by cleaning.

In sum, Till Metro fails to allege that COVID-19 and the resultant
government closure orders caused "direct physical loss" of its
property, a prerequisite for Business Income and Extra Expense
coverage.

Civil Authority Coverage

Covington argues Civil Authority coverage also requires "direct
physical loss."

Judge Frizzel opines that there are no allegations with respect to
the area immediately surrounding any damaged property, apart from
The Vanguard. Accordingly, Till Metro fails to state a claim for
Civil Authority coverage under the policy.

Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Till Metro asserts a bad faith cause of action, alleging Covington
breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing "through
unreasonable actions and/or omissions underlying the decisions to
deny the applicable coverages." But a determination of liability
under the contract is a prerequisite to a recovery for bad faith
breach of an insurance contract, Judge Frizzel notes.

Because Covington is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to
coverage under the insurance contract, it is also entitled to
judgment on Till Metro's claim of bad faith breach of the insurance
contract, Judge Frizzel holds, citing Gillogly v. General Elec.
Capital Assur. Co., 430 F.3d 1284, 1293 (10th Cir. 2005) (applying
Oklahoma law).

Pathogen Exclusion

Covington argues that, even to the extent Till Metro states a claim
for coverage, the policy's pathogen exclusion applies. Covington
argues that the COVID-19 virus fits the definition of a "pathogenic
material" and, as a result, any losses caused by COVID-19 fall
under the exclusion. Till Metro disagrees, arguing a reasonable
consumer would not understand the term "pathogenic material" to
include a virus like COVID-19, and that COVID-19 was not
transmitted by "discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release,
escape or application."

Judge Frizzel finds that the the ordinary and plain meaning of
"pathogenic materials" includes COVID-19, and COVID-19 travels by
discharge, dispersal, or release as COVID-19 spreads when an
infected person breathes out droplets and very small particles that
contain the virus. These droplets and particles can be breathed in
by other people or land on their eyes, noses, or mouth.
Accordingly, the plain language of the policy's pathogenic
materials exclusion excludes losses and damage caused by COVID-19.

Pollutant Exclusion

Covington also argues the policy's pollutant exclusion precludes
coverage for loss or damage caused by COVID-19. But, Till Metro
argues that the pollution exclusion is contained in the CAUSES OF
LOSS -- SPECIAL FORM.

Judge Frizzel holds that Covington fails to establish that the
Special form applies to the BUSINESS INCOME (AND EXTRA EXPENSE)
COVERAGE FORM. Accordingly, this argument fails.

Conclusion

Wherefore, Covington's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is
granted.

The Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery Pending Ruling on
Dispositive Motion is denied as moot.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated June 28,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/s2dzs89w from
Leagle.com.


CVS HEALTH: Appeals Reconsideration Bid Denial in Mier Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendant CVS Health Corporation, et al., filed an appeal from a
court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled JOSEPH MIER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CVS
HEALTH, Rhode Island corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive,
Case No. 8:20-cv-01979-DOC-ADS, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 31, 2021, the
Defendant moved the Court to enter an order reconsidering the
Court's April 29, 2021 Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification and for Appointment of Class Counsel pursuant to
Local Rule 7-18 and Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

Plaintiff Joseph Mier has filed a class action against Defendant
CVS Health alleging that its product labeling for hand-sanitizer --
that it "kills 99.99% of germs" -- is misleading to consumers. In
fact, science proves that alcohol-based hand-sanitizers do not in
fact kill 99.99% of all known germs, said the complaint.

The Plaintiff sought class certification on the grounds that the
primary issues in this case whether the hand-sanitizer does, in
fact, kill 99.99% of germs, and whether the statement at issue
would be material to a reasonable consumer -- are classwide
issues.

The Defendants now seek a review of the Court's Order dated June
11, 2021, denying their motion for reconsideration.

The appellate case is captioned as Joseph Mier v. CVS Health
Corporation, et al., Case No. 21-80072, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 25, 2021.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners CVS HEALTH CORPORATION and VI-JON, LLC are
represented by:

          Shannen Wayne Coffin, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-6255
          E-mail: scoffin@steptoe.com

Plaintiff-Respondent JOSEPH MIER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Thiago Coelho, Esq.
          Robert Dart, Esq.
          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          Bobby Saadian, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
          3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 381-9988
          E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  rdart@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  justin@wilshirelawfirm.com
                  classaction@wilshirelawfirm.com

DARTMOUTH, NOVA SCOTIA: Class Lawsuit in Building Fire Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blair Rhodes at CBC New reports that a fatal fire three years ago
at an apartment building in Dartmouth, N.S., is now the subject of
a class-action lawsuit.

The fire May 19, 2018, at 81 Primrose St. caused extensive damage
and claimed the life of a single tenant.

The legal action was launched by a number of former tenants six
months after the fire, but complications prevented it from being
certified as a class action until a decision released by a justice
of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court. Certification allows the lawsuit
to move forward in the court process.

Part of the problem was identifying who should be part of the
lawsuit.

"Different people suffered different damages," David Coles, a
lawyer for the plaintiffs, said.

"Some people lost all their property, some people had their
property saved to some extent and stored by the property management
company, but then when they went to retrieve it, it couldn't be
located. Different floors suffered alleged different problems with
the alarm bell not working, or not being able to be heard."

Coles also regularly represents the CBC in court cases in the
Maritimes.

The plaintiffs in the case currently include two insurance
companies and 60 former tenants.

City, Halifax Water also named
The lawsuit alleges that the building's operator, Northview
Apartment REIT, and owner, D.D. 81 Primrose Ltd., had heard several
complaints about a tenant who was a careless smoker. The fire is
believed to have started in the tenant's apartment and they were
the lone fatality.

Northview was bought last year by Toronto-based Starlight
Investments and an affiliate. Starlight's founder, Daniel Drimmer,
is listed as the president of D.D. 81 Primrose Ltd.

The suit also names the Halifax Regional Municipality and the
Halifax Water Commission as respondents.

"Both the fire department and the water commission are named for
failures surrounding alleged not working of fire hydrants and also,
in terms of the fire department, that its inspections,
recommendations are alleged not to have been followed up on and
implemented," Coles said.

According to the suit, when firefighters arrived on the scene, they
were unable to get water from the first two hydrants they tried to
tap into. One of the issues raised is whether more timely access to
water might have reduced the size of the fire and the resulting
damage and injuries.

At the time of the fire, the building was home to about 150
tenants. Coles said now that the suit is certified, there will be
advertising to see if any more tenants wish to join in.

If the case goes to a hearing, it would be many months down the
road. But Coles said there's always the possibility of a settlement
before then. [GN]

DETROIT, MI: Faces Class Suit Over Property Damages Due to Flooding
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FOX 2 reports that Ven Johnson Law says it is preparing to file a
class-action lawsuit in Wayne County Circuit Court for flooding in
Metro Detroit from the June 26 torrential rain.

In a statement released on July 13, the law firm says it has been
retained by property owners in Detroit and Grosse Pointe to pursue
damages against local water and sewer authorities. Among those
named, including the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, which
the city of Grosse Pointe Park blames for the flooding, the
statement said.

"DWSD takes in nearly half of a billion dollars in water and sewer
fees annually, yet aging water and sewer lines under their purview
regularly fail, devastating anything and everything caught in the
path of these floodwaters," said Paul Doherty, attorney at Ven
Johnson Law, and flood victim in the release. "Local residents are
at the mercy of faceless local bureaucrats who literally put their
constituents' safety at risk by not investing in proper
infrastructure. This flooding has upended lives causing stress and
a feeling of powerlessness, and a huge financial strain of
rebuilding homes or businesses."  

Ven Johnson Law said that in an advisory from the Grosse Pointe
Park Police, it was reported that approximately seven inches of
rain fell within three hours in the late hours of Friday, June 25.

"Around 1 a.m. on June 26, Conner Creek Pump Station in Detroit,
which is owned by DWSD, failed, resulting in major flooding in
eastern Wayne County communities," the firm says.

Sue McCormick, GLWA Chief Executive Officer has said in a previous
press conference that the pump station did not fail, but "suffered
operational challenges" and was overwhelmed by the amount of
rainfall in so short a time.

One of those challenges was a loss of power at Conner Creek she
said.

"The pump station lost, what we call, 'house power' -- building
lights, access gates, control system," McCormick said, adding that
the Freud Pump Station also suffered similar challenges.

The Ven Johnson statement recalled the catastrophic flooding of
August 2014 when five inches of rain overwhelmed the region.

"Residents who have sustained water damage following recent
flooding can take immediate steps to protect their rights," the
statement said, requesting all of them file a Sewage Disposal
System Event Notice Claim form within 45 days from the sewer backup
with all potentially responsible parties listed, document all
losses with inventories and pictures, check with homeowners'
insurance carriers for water and sewer back up coverage and get at
least two estimates for repairs. [GN]

DIDI GLOBAL: Labaton Sucharow Reminds of September 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP, a nationally ranked and award-winning
shareholder rights law firm, on July 14 disclosed that a securities
class action has been filed against DiDi Global Inc ('DiDi' or the
'Company') (NYSE:DIDI) for violations of the federal securities
laws. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares (1)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
conducted in June 2021 (the 'IPO'), and/or (2) securities between
June 27, 2021 and July 6, 2021, inclusive (the 'Class Period'), are
encouraged to contact the firm before September 7, 2021.

On July 2, 2021, just two days after DiDi held its IPO on the New
York Stock Exchange, the Cyberspace Administration of China ('CAC')
announces that it had launched a cybersecurity review into DiDi
'aim[ed] at preventing risks related to national data security.' In
a press release also issued on that day, the Company stated that
'[d]uring the [CAC's] review, DiDi is required to suspend new user
registration in China.' On this news, the company's share price
fell $0.87, or approximately 5.3%, to close at $15.53 per share on
July 2, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

On Sunday, July 4, 2021, DiDi reported that the CAC ordered
smartphone app stores to stop offering the 'DiDi Chuxing' app
because it 'collect[ed] personal information in violation of
relevant PRC laws and regulations.' Though users who previously
downloaded the app could continue to use it, DiDi stated that 'the
app takedown may have an adverse impact on its revenue in China.'

On July 5, 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that the CAC had
asked the company as early as three months prior to the IPO to
postpone the offering because of national security concerns and to
'conduct a thorough self-examination of its network security.' On
this news, the Company's stock price fell $3.04 per share, or
19.6%, to close at $12.49 per share on July 6, 2021, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

By the commencement of this action, DiDi's stock was trading as low
as $12.06 per share, a nearly 14% decline from the $14 per share
IPO price.

If you currently own American Depositary Receipts ('ADRs') in DIDI
or securities acquired between June 30, 2021, and July 2, 2021,
contact David J. Schwartz using the toll-free number (800) 321-0476
or via email at david@labaton.com to receive additional information
and protect your investments free of charge.

                         About the Firm

Labaton Sucharow LLP is one of the world's leading complex
litigation firms representing clients in securities, antitrust,
corporate governance and shareholder rights, and consumer
cybersecurity and data privacy litigation. Labaton Sucharow has
been recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it
is consistently ranked in leading industry publications. Offices
are located in New York, NY, Wilmington, DE, and Washington, D.C.
More information about Labaton Sucharow is available at
http://www.labaton.com.

CONTACT:

David J. Schwartz
(800) 321-0476
david@labaton.com [GN]

DRAFTKINGS INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Reminds of August 31 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against DraftKings Inc. and certain
of its directors on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired DraftKings securities between December 23, 2019
and June 15, 2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such
investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's
site: www.bgandg.com/dkng.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) SBTech had a history of unlawful operations; (2)
accordingly, DraftKings' merger with SBTech exposed the Company to
dealings in black-market gaming; (3) the foregoing increased the
Company's regulatory and criminal risks with respect to these
transactions; (4) as a result of all the foregoing, the Company's
revenues were, in part, derived from unlawful conduct and thus
unsustainable; (5) accordingly, the benefits of the Business
Combination were overstated; and (6) as a result, the Company's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
www.bgandg.com/dkng or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or
his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz
& Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484. If you suffered a loss in
DraftKings you have until August 31, 2021, to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique. Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients. In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes. [GN]

DRAFTKINGS INC: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Drop in Share Price
-------------------------------------------------------------
KENT J. RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DRAFTKINGS INC. f/k/a DIAMOND
EAGLE ACQUISITION CORP.; JASON D. ROBINS; JASON K. PARK; JEFF
SAGANSKY; and ELI BAKER, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-05739
(S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2021) is a federal securities class action on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired DraftKings
securities between December 23, 2019 and June 15, 2021, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused
by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
compliance policies. Specifically, the Defendants allegedly made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
SBTech had a history of unlawful operations; (ii) accordingly,
DraftKings' merger with SBTech exposed the Company to dealings in
black-market gaming; (iii) the foregoing increased the Company's
regulatory and criminal risks with respect to these transactions;
(iv) as a result of all the foregoing, the Company's revenues were,
in part, derived from unlawful conduct and thus unsustainable; (v)
accordingly, the benefits of the Business Combination were
overstated; and (vi) as a result, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On June 15, 2021, Hindenburg Research ("Hindenburg") published a
report addressing DraftKings, alleging that the Company's merger
with SBTech exposed DraftKings to dealings in black-market gaming.
Citing "conversations with multiple former employees, a review of
SEC and international filings, and inspection of back-end
infrastructure at illicit international gaming websites,"
Hindenburg alleged that "SBTech has a long and ongoing record of
operating in black markets," estimating that 50% of SBTech's
revenue is from markets where gambling is banned."

Following publication of the Hindenburg report, DraftKings' stock
price fell $2.11 per share, or 4.17%, to close at $48.51 per share
on June 15, 2021.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit says.

DRAFTKINGS INC. f/k/a DIAMOND EAGLE ACQUISITION CORP. is a digital
sports entertainment and gaming company. The Company
business-to-consumer (B2C) segment provides daily fantasy sports,
sports betting, and online casino products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com

DRAFTKINGS INC: Schall Law Firm Reminds of August 31 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
reminds investors of a class action lawsuit against DraftKings Inc.
f/k/a Diamond Eagle Acquisition Corp. ("DraftKings" or "the
Company") (NASDAQ: DKNG) for violations of Sec10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Investors who purchased the Company's securities between December
23, 2019 and June 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the firm before August 31, 2021.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss, click
https://schallfirm.com/cases/draftkings-inc/#case-form to
participate.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at: www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at: brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. DraftKings' merger with SBTech (Global)
Limited ("SBTech"), a company with a history of unlawful business
practices, opened the Company to the risk of engaging in black
market gaming. The Company's revenues were the result of, in part,
unlawful activity. Based on these facts, the Company's public
statements were false and materially misleading throughout the
class period. When the market learned the truth about DraftKings,
investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics. [GN]

ELITE LINE: Fails to Pay All Hours Worked, Shaw Class Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL SHAW, on behalf of himself and the Class members v. ELITE
LINE SERVICES, INC.; DAIFUKU AMERICA CORPORATION; DAIFUKU NORTH
AMERICA HOLDING COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-at-00628 (E.D. Cal., July
12, 2021) is a class action that stems from Defendants' policies
and practices of:

   (1) failing to Plaintiff and putative Class members for all
       hours worked;

   (2) failing to pay Plaintiff and putative Class members minimum

       wage for all hours worked;

   (3) failing to pay Plaintiff and putative Class members overtime

       wages; and

   (4) failing to authorize and permit Plaintiff and putative
       Class members to take meal and rest breaks to which they are

       entitled by law, and failing to pay premium compensation for

       missed meal and rest breaks.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants for various projects as a
mechanic from June 2020 to February 2021. The worked for the
Defendants in Bakersfield, California.

The Defendants are one of the largest airport service providers in
the U.S. Defendants provide operations and maintenance services to
airport facilities throughout the United States, including in
California. Elite offers in-line baggage handling systems,
passenger boarding bridges, ground support equipment, facilities,
and airport vehicle. Elite provides its services throughout the
United States, including the state of California. Elite employs
hundreds of hourly, non-exempt workers similarly situated to
Plaintiff in California.

Daifuku America is part of the managerial handling equipment
manufacturing industry. Daifuku America provides its services
throughout the United States, including the state of California.
Daifuku America employs hundreds of hourly, non-exempt workers
similarly situated to Plaintiff in California.

Daifuku North America is also part of the managerial handling
equipment manufacturing industry. Daifuku North America provides
its services through Elite and Daifuku America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Esther L. Bylsma, Esq.
          Brian G. Lee, Esq.
          Philippe M. Gaudard, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE
          COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  ebylsma@schneiderwallace.com
                  blee@schneiderwallace.com
                  pgaudard@schneiderwallace.com

EMBE RESTAURANT: Underpays Service Workers, Curko et al. Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY CURKO and OSCAR ZARATE, Plaintiffs v. EMBE RESTAURANT CORP.
d/b/a OSTERIA 57 and EMANUELE NIGRO, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-05977 (S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2021) bring this collective
action complaint against the Defendants to recover compensatory
damages and other relief as a result of the Defendants' alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiffs, who worked for the Defendants as servers, allege
that the Defendant failed to pay them and other similarly situated
service workers any wages at the federally mandated minimum wage.
Specifically, the Defendants never paid them $1,000 as their tips
which they received as servers, never paid them more than $1,000 in
tips even when they earned more money in tip compensation and never
paid them direct cash wage and separate minimum wage rate for the
time they spent working as servers as well as the time they spent
performing non-tipped work after their restaurants are closed to
customers. The Defendants purportedly employed the policy and
practice of disguising the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated
service workers' actual duties to avoid paying them at the minimum
wage rate, and to enable them to pay them at the lower tip-credited
rate by designating them as a bartender instead of a non-tipped
employee. In addition, the Defendant failed to provide them with
pay stubs or wage statements, and with a notice of rate of pay
pursuant to the NYLL and FLSA, says the suit.

Embe Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Osteria 57 operates a restaurant owned
by Emanuele Nigro. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Julia Klein, Esq.
         KLEIN LAW GROUP OF NY PLLC
         120 East 79th Street, Suite 1A
         New York, NY 10021
         Tel: (347) 292-8170
         E-mail: jklein@kleinlegalgroup.com

EPIC LANDSCAPE: Court Refuses to Accept Settlement in Albelo Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri,
Central Division, denied the Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Settlement Approval in the lawsuit titled RADAMES
MOLINA ALBELO, o/b/o himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EPIC LANDSCAPE PRODUCTIONS, L.C., Defendant,
Case No. 4:17-cv-0454-DGK (W.D. Mo.).

The case is a collective action lawsuit seeking to recover unpaid
wages and overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). The Second Amended Complaint also asserts Rule 23 class
action claims for various state law causes of action.

Although the Court appreciates the parties' earnest efforts to
reach a compromise, the proposed settlement agreement Settlement
does not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), (g), and
(h), District Judge Greg Kays opines. That said, the Court believes
it is possible the parties will be able to fashion a revised
settlement that addresses the Court's concerns and will merit
approval. The motion for preliminary approval is, therefore, denied
without prejudice.

Because time is of the essence, the Court has written a much
shorter order than it typically would when denying approval of a
proposed settlement. This order outlines the Court's concerns with
the Settlement. It does not include a summary of the Settlement or
an extensive discussion of applicable law. The Court's aim is to
give guidance to the parties as quickly as possible so that if this
case can be fairly settled before trial, it will be.

Contemporaneously with the Order, the Court is releasing orders on
three dispositive motions. It was reluctant to issue these orders
previously because the parties were attempting to negotiate a
settlement, and the Court did not want to "blow-up" any tentative
settlement before the Court could consider it. Because the case is
more than four years old and the trial is only three weeks away,
the Court cannot withhold ruling on these motions any longer.

Although the Court encourages the parties to renew their efforts to
settle this case, they should continue to actively prepare for
trial, Judge Kays says.

Judge Kays opines that the most concerning feature of the
Settlement is that it is a claims-made settlement with a reversion
provision, combined with what appears to be a clear-sailing
provision on attorneys' fees. He notes that reversion provisions
are disfavored in FLSA collective-action cases, citing Vinsant v.
MyExperian, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-2056-PKH, 2019 WL 2518143, at *3
(W.D. Ark. June 18, 2019).

The reversion provision is a red flag particularly since the
settlement also contains a "clear sailing" agreement on attorneys'
fees, thereby, ensuring there will be no adversarial briefing to
alert the Court to potential issues, Judge Kays points out.

The claims procedure--which requires each class member to submit a
formal claim to receive a settlement check, even though doing so
serves no useful purpose and appears designed to lower
participation rates--is also a red flag, Judge Kays also notes. He
explains that the putative class members' damage awards are easily
calculable from information in the Defendant's possession. In fact,
as part of the proposed notice, each class member will be notified
of the exact estimated amount he or she will receive under the
Settlement.

Because the class members are all former employees, the Defendant
has contact information (albeit dated), for each class member.
Thus, the parties have the ability to mail each class member a
settlement check along with a short description of what the check
is for, and an explanation that by endorsing and cashing the check,
the class member will be settling all of his or her claims. This
approach would be the simplest and most effective method for
maximizing participation, Judge Kays points out.

Instead, the Settlement mandates a claims-made process which
dictates that class members be notified only by mail, and that in
order to receive a check, a class member must submit a formal
claim. Judge Kays insists this procedure is unnecessary and departs
from recognized best practices.

The Court has several other concerns with the Settlement, which do
not rise to the level of "deal-breakers." These concerns are as
follows, in no particular order:

   1. The Settlement does not provide a clear and consistent
      definition of exactly who is in the settlement class;

   2. The Court also has significant concerns with whether Albelo
      is qualified to act as a class representative for the
      entire class;

   3. The motion for settlement approval's explanation as to why
      the proposed settlement amount is fair and reasonable is
      insufficient;

   4. The procedure and dates proposed by the parties for
      objecting and opting-out are problematic because they do
      not allow a class member to object and, if the concern is
      not addressed to the member's satisfaction, opt out;

   5. Although much of the proposed notice procedure is
      excellent, there does not appear to be any provision for
      providing notice in Spanish;

   6. The Court also has concerns with the confidentiality
      provision, which will keep the terms of this settlement
      confidential, to the extent permitted by law;

   7. Aside from the amount of attorneys' fees awarded to class
      counsel, the Court has concerns with the timing of the
      payments; and

   8. Related to this, the Court is concerned that the proposed
      notice does not unambiguously direct class members, who
      have concerns or questions about the Settlement to contact
      Class counsel.

The motion for preliminary approval is, therefore, denied without
prejudice.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 28, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/fpaahf6k from Leagle.com.


EPIC LANDSCAPE: Missouri Court Narrows Claims in Albelo Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri,
Central Division, grants in part the Defendant's motion for partial
summary judgment in the lawsuit captioned as RADAMES MOLINA ALBELO,
o/b/o himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. EPIC LANDSCAPE PRODUCTIONS, L.C., Defendant, Case No.
4:17-cv-0454-DGK (W.D. Mo.).

The case is a collective action lawsuit seeking to recover unpaid
wages and overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). The Second Amended Complaint ("Complaint") also brings
Rule 23 class action claims for various state law causes of
action.

Now before the Court is Defendant Epic's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment. Epic moves for summary judgment on each of Plaintiff
Radames Molina Albelo's ("Albelo") state law claims--Counts II
through VII.

Material Undisputed Facts

The Court finds the material undisputed facts to be as follows.
Epic employed Albelo as a laborer in its Landscape Production
Division and at its Gardner, Kansas location.

Representatives of Epic traveled to Albelo's hometown in Puerto
Rico to recruit workers and held a meeting about employment
opportunities with Epic. Epic advertises in Puerto Rico to recruit
workers, and in these advertisements Epic claims overtime is
available. Albelo, however, does not recall seeing any
advertisements for this meeting; he learned about the meeting
through word of mouth. Albelo does not recall anything that was
said during this meeting, nor does he recall seeing any type of job
advertisement prior to becoming employed by Epic.

Mr. Albelo filled out and signed a job application for the position
with Epic. He does not remember anyone at Epic representing to him
that Epic would pay him overtime compensation, nor does he recall
seeing any documents mentioning Epic would pay him overtime
compensation. He does not remember filling out any kind of written
employment contract with Epic, and he does not have one in his
possession.

Epic paid Albelo $12.79 per hour for all hours he worked while at
Epic. It did not pay him an overtime rate of pay for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

When he came to work for Epic, Albelo lived with other Epic workers
at the Lennox Apartments, located in Olathe, Kansas. Neither Albelo
nor any of the other Epic workers are named on any of the rental
agreements. Rather, the Lennox Apartments' rental agreements are
with Epic, and Epic deducted money from Albelo's paycheck to pay
for the apartment. Whether Albelo authorized Epic to deduct rent
and rent-related expenses (such as rental insurance) from his
paycheck, as Epic suggests, is in dispute.

The parties agree Epic advanced Albelo cash for traveling from
Puerto Rico to work in Kansas. When Epic advanced Albelo $200 in
cash, he authorized Epic to take that $200 out of his paycheck at a
later date. Albelo does not have any evidence that any of Epic's
deductions from his paychecks dropped him below the federal minimum
wage rate of $7.25 per hour.

Discussion

District Judge Greg Kays holds that Epic is entitled to summary
judgment on a portion of Count II, that is, any Missouri state law
claim that Albelo was not paid minimum wage.

The parties agree that Albelo lived in Kansas and worked out of
Epic's Gardner, Kansas, office, so Kansas state wage law is
potentially applicable to Albelo. The parties also apparently agree
that Albelo worked for Epic in Missouri, thus, he could potentially
have claims arising under Missouri law. Count II alleges Epic
failed to pay earned wages and overtime in violation of Missouri
law, citing to various provisions of Missouri's Minimum Wage and
Maximum Hours Laws ("MMWMHL").

Epic argues it is entitled to summary judgment on Albelo's MMWMHL
claims because they are preempted by the FLSA. Additionally, or
alternately, Epic argues that to the extent Albelo is claiming he
was not paid minimum wage under Missouri law for all hours worked,
it is entitled to summary judgment because the record shows he was
always paid at least the minimum wage.

With respect to Epic's preemption argument, the Court holds it is
insufficiently developed. Epic does not expressly explain whether
the basis for this claim is "express preemption," "field
preemption," or "conflict preemption," nor does it explain
precisely how the FLSA allegedly preempts Albelo's MMWMHL claim.

At any rate, Epic's preemption argument is unpersuasive, Judge Kays
opines. As Epic acknowledges, no court in the Western District of
Missouri has held the FLSA preempts claims brought under the
MMWMHL. After carefully reviewing these decisions and those cited
by Epic, the Court finds the Western District of Missouri
decisions, which deal specifically with Missouri wage and hour law,
are better reasoned and more persuasive on the issues presented in
this case. The Court holds the FLSA does not preempt Albelo's
MMWMHL claim.

As for Epic's contention that it is entitled to summary judgment on
any Missouri state law claim that Albelo was not paid minimum wage,
the Court notes the Complaint does not specifically assert any such
claim (at least not clearly), nor does Albelo contest granting Epic
summary judgment on such a claim. The Court holds Epic is entitled
to summary judgment on any claim that he was not paid the
applicable minimum wage under Missouri state law, as alleged in
Count II.

Judge Kays holds that Epic is entitled to summary judgment on Count
III.

Mr. Albelo concedes Epic is entitled to summary judgment on Count
III, his Kansas Wage Payment Act ("KWPA") claim. Judge Kays points
out that this claim fails because the KWPA only requires employers
to pay all wages due to the employees of the employer at least once
during each calendar month, on regular paydays designated in
advance by the employer.

The Court finds that Epic is not entitled to summary judgment on
Albelo's claims that deductions from his paycheck violated the
Kansas Wage Payment Act, Count IV.

Epic argues it is entitled to summary judgment on Albelo's claims
that Epic's deductions from his paychecks were improper and
violated the Kansas Wage Payment Act ("KWPA"). Epic contends no
reasonable factfinder could find Epic violated with KWPA when it
withheld portions of Albelo's wages. The existing record does not
support this conclusion, Judge Kays finds.

Epic argues the existing record shows Albelo made signed, written
authorizations approving all deductions, and that the deductions
were either made for Albelo's benefit or to repay an advance.

As discussed in the Material Undisputed Facts section, the record
is more equivocal than Epic suggests. While Albelo did authorize
deductions from his paycheck to repay some advances, a reasonable
factfinder could find Albelo did not authorize Epic to deduct money
for rent or related expenses. Accordingly, Epic's motion for
summary judgment on this claim is denied.

Judge Kays holds that Epic is entitled to summary judgment on
Albelo's quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims, Counts V and
VII respectively.

Epic moves for summary judgment on Albelo's quantum meruit and
unjust enrichment claims, Counts V and VII respectively. Epic
argues Albelo cannot prevail on either claim because both are forms
of equitable relief, and he is not entitled to equitable relief
because: (1) statutory remedies are available to address his
claims; and (2) he cannot show a reasonable expectation of overtime
compensation.

A header in Albelo's brief states he opposes granting Epic summary
judgment on his quantum meruit claim, but the body of the brief
does not mention quantum meruit, much less explain how such a claim
survives summary judgment, Judge Kays notes. Because there is no
explanation of how his quantum meruit claim can survive, the Court
treats this claim as conceded.

With respect to his unjust enrichment claim, Albelo's brief
incorporates by reference the Plaintiffs' suggestions in support of
their own motion for summary judgment. This briefing, however,
concerns the unjust enrichment claims of collective action class
members, who held H-2B visas, which Albelo did not, Judge Kays
notes.

Judge Kays opines that Albelo attempts to piggy-back his unjust
enrichment claim on their claims by arguing Epic must confer on its
"U.S. workforce"--that is, himself and other class members living
in the United States--"the same benefit that it promised to
immigrant laborers." But this argument is not developed further nor
is it supported by citation to relevant caselaw. Consequently, it
is unpersuasive, Judge Kays points out.

Considering the lack of any persuasive argument to the contrary,
the Court holds Epic is entitled to summary judgment on Albelo's
quantum meruit and unjust enrichment claims.

Judge Kays further holds that Epic is entitled to summary judgment
on Count VI.

Mr. Albelo concedes Epic is entitled to summary judgment on his
breach of contract claims, Count VI. Albelo's contract claim fails
because it is undisputed that he had no written or implied contract
with Epic requiring it to pay him overtime compensation. The
absence of a contract between Albelo and Epic is fatal to this
claim, Judge Kays holds.

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed, Epic has demonstrated it is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff Albelo's state law claims
in a portion of Count II and all of Counts III, V, VI, and VII.
Epic's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is granted in part.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 28, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mpynyh6t from Leagle.com.


FEDEX GROUND: Derieux Wage-and-Hour Suit Goes to D. New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled FRANCIS M. DERIEUX, III, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM,
INC., DALI TRANSPORTATION INC., BARRINGTON LOGISTICS, INC., and
JOHN DOES 1-5 and 6-10, Case No. CAM-L-001577-21, was removed from
the Superior Court of New Jersey for the County of Camden to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 14,
2021.

The Clerk of Court for the District of New Jersey assigned Case No.
1:21-cv-13645 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged failure to pay wages
and overtime wages for delivery drivers in New Jersey.

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. is a company that provides
package delivery services, with its principal place of business in
Moon Township, Pennsylvania.

Dali Transportation Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight shipping
and trucking company based in Florida.

Barrington Logistics, Inc. is a logistics company in New Jersey.
[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Samantha Sherwood Bononno, Esq.
         FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
         Two Logan Square
         100 N. 18th Street, 12th Floor
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (610) 230-2172
         E-mail: sbononno@fisherphillips.com

                - and –

         Jessica G. Scott, Esq.
         Andrew H. Myers, Esq.
         Brian T. Ruocco, Esq.
         WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
         370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4500
         Denver, CO 80202
         Telephone: (303) 244-1800
         Facsimile: (303) 244-1879

FIRST NATIONAL: Faces Rudy Suit Over Unsolicited Text Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH RUDY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FIRST NATIONAL COLLECTION BUREAU, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 8:21-cv-01685 (M.D. Fla., July 12, 2021) is a
class action complaint brought against the Defendant for its
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA), the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act and the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant sent him a text message on
his cellular telephone number ending in 1528 on June 9, 2021 in an
attempt to collect an alleged debt, pertaining to reference number
*****9220. The Plaintiff asserts that he did not owe any debt nor
offered or extended any credit, never involved in any transaction,
never entered into any contract, and never did any business with
any entity pertaining to reference number *****9220. Specifically,
the Defendant was attempting to collect a debt from the wrong
consumer via text message. The Defendant purportedly utilized a
third-party to contact the Plaintiff via text message instead of
doing it on its own, thereby violating 15 U.S.C. Section 1692a(2)
by unlawfully disclosing private information regarding the
Plaintiff and the alleged debt. The Plaintiff also contends that he
never provided the Defendant his prior express consent to send text
messages to him using an automatic telephone dialing system
(ATDS).

Moreover, the Defendant continued sending the same
computer-generated text messages to the Plaintiff on June 14, 2021,
June 21, 2021 and July 7, 2021 and also to other hundred or
thousands of consumers. As a result of the Defendant's alleged
abusive, deceptive, unfair and unlawful means in attempting to
collect debts, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons
have suffered actual damages.

First National Collection Bureau, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian L. Shrader, Esq.
          SHRADER LAW, PLLC
          612 W. Bay Street
          Tampa, FL 33606
          Tel: (813) 360-1529
          Fax: (813) 336-0832
          E-mail: bshrader@shraderlawfirm.com

FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: New York Court Dismisses Preis FDCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled YANKOV
PREIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 21 CV
613 (VB) (S.D.N.Y.).

The Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to
state a claim.

Plaintiff Yankov Preis brings this putative class action against
Defendant Firstsource, alleging violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692, et
seq.  According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff
a debt collection letter dated Jan. 15, 2020. The upper left-hand
corner of the letter has a square blue American Express logo. Next
to the logo is the following address: American Express, PO Box
315111, Salt Lake City, UT 84131-9934.

The letter states that the Plaintiff's American Express account has
been transferred to the Defendant for collections. It states that
the Plaintiff may contact "them," referring to the Defendant, by
phone, website, or mailing address, and provides the Defendant's
phone number, website, and mailing address. The paragraph
immediately following the Defendant's mailing address states, "You
may also pay your balance online at
www.americanexpress.com/waytopay using reference code 10952 to
access the website." At the bottom of the letter, it states:
"Sincerely, American Express Global Collections."

The Plaintiff alleges the letter violates Sections 1692e, 1692e(9),
1692e(10), 1692e(11), and 1692e(14) of the FDCPA. Specifically, the
Plaintiff claims Firstsource sent the letter with the intention to
masquerade as American Express and deceive the Plaintiff into
believing: (i) the letter was prepared and sent by American
Express, (ii) American Express can be reached at the addresses on
the letter, (iii) payment sent to those addresses would be received
by American Express, and (iv) American Express, rather than a third
party debt collector, was attempting to collect the debt referenced
in the collection letter.

The Defendant argues that the complaint should be dismissed because
the Plaintiff fails plausibly allege to that the Defendant sent the
letter.

The Court agrees.

Pointing to Pollak v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, 2017 WL 1023351
(D.N.J. Mar. 16, 2017), and Elouarrak v. Firstsource Advantage,
LLC, 2020 WL 291364 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 21, 2020, in which the
plaintiffs had also pleaded Firstsource was "masquerading" as
American Express, the Plaintiff argues it is common knowledge at
this point that Firstsource routinely masquerades as American
Express. This argument does not change the Court's conclusion.

The Plaintiff's reliance on allegations contained in other
complaints, and not repeated or referenced in the complaint in this
case, is improper and cannot form the basis of an FDCPA claim,
District Judge Vincent L. Briccetti holds. He opines that neither
case was any sort of "common knowledge" that Firstsource "routinely
masquerades as American Express" established.

The court in Pollak v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, concluded that
the plaintiff had plausibly alleged an FDCPA claim against
Firstsource and denied the 12(b)(6) motion. And in Elouarrak v.
Firstsource Advantage, LLC, the Court did not consider the
sufficiency of the complaint's factual allegations; rather, it
granted a motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2).

Had the Plaintiff plausibly alleged that the Defendant sent the
letter, then the complaint may plausibly plead the letter violates
Section 1692e by "creating a false impression as to its source,"
using a false or deceptive practice to collect a debt, by failing
to disclose the letter is from debt collector, or by using another
organization or company's name, Judge Briccetti points out. But
because the plaintiff does not plausibly allege the Defendant sent
the letter, there is no factual content in the complaint from which
the Court could conclude a reasonable consumer would misunderstand
the letter.

Accordingly, the complaint must be dismissed.

Hence, the motion to dismiss is granted.

The Clerk is instructed to terminate the motion and close this
case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated June 28,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/uwc9zke7 from
Leagle.com.


FORD MOTOR: Judge Approves Class Suit Over Erroneous Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ford has been getting into trouble over "track-ready" Mustangs
after a few customers formally accused the company of erroneous
marketing in 2017. A class-action lawsuit was even filed in March
of that year, stating that the Ford Mustang Shelby GT350 suffered
from overheating problems that precluded it from being fully
functional on a racetrack -- specifically early examples of the car
equipped with either the Technology Package or left in the base
configuration.

Earlier this month, Federal Judge Federico A. Moreno certified
statutory and common law fraud classes pertaining to the model in
California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Washington State.
Additional approvals relating specifically to statutory fraud
and/or implied warranty claims were made for Oregon, Missouri,
Tennessee, and Texas.

Despite the GT350's flat-plane, 5.2-liter V8 engine (526 horsepower
and 429 lb-ft of torque) going down smooth as a dreamy performance
engine, early examples of the car are alleged to have leaked fluids
when exposed to the rigors of track use -- even for a short time.
While exclusive to lower-trimmed models, customers remained annoyed
that a vehicle Ford described as "track-ready" was undergoing
hardships that effectively limited its abilities to a point that it
wouldn't be competitive. Overheating Mustang GT350s would default
to an engine management program colloquially known as "Limp Mode"
that cut power to keep engine temperatures down.

Ford remedied the problem in 2017 by making the Track Package
obligatory. All subsequent models came with the oil, transmission,
and differential coolers angry customers claimed should probably
have been on the car to begin with. Plaintiffs are claiming that
the manufacturer originally removed these items from base-trimmed
vehicles as a way to increase profits and never should have stated
that they were track-ready automobiles, especially since a number
of the involved parties stated they purchased the vehicles
exclusively for track use.

"In reality, Plaintiffs say, the Base and Technology package
versions of the cars were intentionally designed without coolers in
order to inflate Ford's profits margins," reads the lawsuit. "As a
result, the Base and Tech cars could not complete a full 'Track
Day' without going into 'Limp Mode.'"

The Ford Mustang GT350 has since been discontinued to give more
leeway for the 760-hp Shelby GT500 and returning Mach 1 Mustang,
the latter of which borrows many of the GT350's components while
taking a slightly more relaxed attitude. But its being gone does
not mean it has been forgotten. Judge Moreno's decision opens the
door for the class-action experts at Hagens Berman to start making
moves in numerous states.

"We are pleased the court has allowed our claims to continue and
look forward to leading this case forward with something these
affected Mustangs surely lack -- speed and endurance," managing
partner of law firm Hagens Berman, Steve Berman, said in a
statement. "The class of individuals who purchased these pricey
pieces of history deserve to have more than a flashy trophy in
their garage. They deserve to have a car that is capable of the
track performance they were baited with."

The international law firm also retweeted a story from The Drive,
quoting Moreno as cautiously criticizing Ford's marketing relating
to the Mustang.

"Through product placement in James Bond movies and racing
partnerships with figures like Carroll Shelby, Ford has spent half
a century cultivating an aura of performance and adventure," the
judge wrote in his order. "But these Plaintiffs allege, to Lee
Iacocca's chagrin, that their cars are more like Pintos than
Mustangs."

The Mustang's track-related issues seem quite a bit less dire than
the Pinto fires. But it's another item in what's been a prolonged
rough patch for Ford's quality control. While automakers around the
globe are perpetually subject to regulatory action and lawsuits
relating to false promises, cost-cutting, and general defects, Ford
has been getting some high-profile attention of late. While not all
of that attention pertains to the Mustang, GT models equipped with
the MT82 six-speed manual transmissions supplied by Getrag were hit
with a lawsuit of their own. Ford has had a lot of issues with
Getrag-sourced gearboxes, with the MT82 starting to get serious
attention in 2020.

"The transmission is defective in its design, manufacturing, and or
materials in that, among other problems, the transmission slips,
jerks, clashes gears, and harshly engages; has premature internal
wear, increased shift efforts, inability to drive, and eventually
suffers a catastrophic failure," states the lawsuit. "Ford
repeatedly failed to disclose and actively concealed the defect
from class members and the public and continues to market the class
vehicles without disclosing the transmission defect."

Problems are suspected to go back to 2010 and incorporates a 2011
investigation conducted by the NHTSA, though it failed to conclude
the MT82 posed any "unreasonable" safety risks. The suit was
originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California but has since been moved to the Eastern
District of Michigan. Earlier this year, Ford also settled a
class-action lawsuit pertaining to those pesky PowerShift DSP6
dual-clutches sold by Getrag and installed in Fiesta and Focus
models between 2011 and 2016. [GN]

FORD MOTOR: Shelby Automobiles Lack Cooling Systems, Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Hodge at jalopnik.com reports that Ford made waves when it
debuted the Shelby GT350 for 2015.More than just a track-focused
GT, Ford was after the best. Cars like the Porsche 911 GT3 and BMW
M4 were benchmarked during its development. Some owners say the
final product isn't what was promised as The Drive reports that a
suit filed by some 2016 model year GT350 owners in 2017 over its
track capability will be allowed to move forward.

The suit claims that the base and Technology Package equipped 2016
cars, while advertised as track ready, lacked the auxiliary cooling
systems necessary to perform on the track. Higher trim levels came
equipped with transmission differential and oil coolers that
allowed them to maintain operating temperatures under track
conditions, while the owners say it's common for their cars to
enter a limp mode under hard use.

Pasadena, California law firm Hagens Berman, claims:

"In reality, Plaintiffs say, the Base and Technology package
versions of the cars were intentionally designed without coolers in
order to inflate Ford's profits margins. As a result, the Base and
Tech cars could not complete a full 'Track Day' without going into
'Limp Mode.'"

Ford is saying that the limp mode is a safety feature designed to
protect critical components from overheating and damage. But
presiding Judge Federico A. Moreno isn't buying it. In his order,
he calls out Ford saying they should know better with their racing
and performance history.

"Through product placement in James Bond movies and racing
partnerships with figures like Carroll Shelby, Ford has spent half
a century cultivating an aura of performance and adventure. But
these Plaintiffs allege, to Lee Iacocca's chagrin, that their cars
are more like Pintos than Mustangs." [GN]

FORSTER & GARBUS: E.D. New York Dismisses Klein FDCPA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JACOB KLEIN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORSTER & GARBUS, LLP
and JOHN DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-06164 (DLI) (RML)
(E.D.N.Y.), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York grants the Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings
and dismisses the complaint in its entirety.

Plaintiff Jacob Klein brings this putative class action against
Forster, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, et seq. The Defendant moved
for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

Background

The Plaintiff is an individual residing in Brooklyn, New York, and
the Defendant, a New York LLP, is a "debt collector" under the
FDCPA. The Defendant sent the Plaintiff a collection letter (the
"Letter"), dated Feb. 6, 2019, regarding a debt that the Plaintiff
allegedly owed to Discover Bank.

The Letter provides that the Plaintiff has an outstanding balance
of $4,788.00 and that, if interest or other charges or fees accrue
on his account, after the date of the Letter, the amount due on the
day he pays may be greater.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Letter is misleading because it
merely alludes to the possibility of interest accruing, when, in
fact, the Defendant is well aware that interest is definitely
accruing. He further alleges that the Letter uses language that is
confusing to him since it is unclear as to whether or not the
account was actually, currently accruing interest when it simply
could have stated that interest was accruing. Thus, the Plaintiff
asserts one cause of action against the Defendant for violation of
15 U.S.C. Section 1692e, which prohibits debt collectors from
making false or misleading representations in connection with the
collection of any debt.

Discussion

The Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings arguing that the
Complaint fails to plead any plausible claims under the FDCPA. In
his opposition, without appending a proposed amended complaint, the
Plaintiff informally requests leave to amend the Complaint: (1) "to
the extent the Court deems it necessary to amend the pleadings in
conformity with Plaintiff's arguments" regarding the Letter's
purportedly misleading statement concerning interest accrual; and
(2) to assert an additional claim under 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e
based on the Letter's purportedly misleading reference to the
potential accrual of "other charges or fees," that the Defendant
does not have a legal right to collect.

District Judge Dora L. Irizarry find that while the Plaintiff
asserts that he brings this class action on behalf of a class of
New York consumers, he fails to allege that he is a consumer.
Moreover, the Plaintiff fails to plead adequately that the Letter
was misleading under Section 1692e.

The Defendant contends that the Letter does not violate Section
1692e because it uses the safe harbor language set forth by the
Second Circuit in Avila v. Riexinger & Associates., LLC, 817 F.3d
72 (2d Cir. 2016). In Avila, the Second Circuit held that "the
FDCPA requires debt collectors, when they notify consumers of their
account balance, to disclose that the balance may increase due to
interest and fees." Accordingly, the Court found that the "safe
harbor" language satisfies a debt collector's duty to state the
amount of debt in cases where the amount varies from day to day.

However, the Court noted that its holding did not require debt
collectors to use "any particular disclaimer." Rather, so long as a
debt collector either accurately informs the consumer that the
amount of the debt stated in the letter will increase over time, or
clearly states that the holder of the debt will accept payment of
the amount set forth in full satisfaction of the debt if payment is
made by a specified date, the debt collector will not be liable
under Section 1692e.

Judge Irizarry also holds, among other things, that the Plaintiff's
reliance on Carlin v. Davidson Fink LLP, 852 F.3d 207 (2d Cir.
2017) is misplaced. There, the Circuit held that a debt collection
letter inadequately disclosed the amount of the debt as required by
Section 1692g because it included unaccrued fees and interest.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's argument arises from exactly the kind
of labored reading of the Letter from which courts have worked to
protect debt collectors and, therefore, is without merit, Judge
Irizarry holds.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff fails to plead that the Letter
violates Section 1692e. As such, the Defendant's motion for
judgment on the pleadings is granted, and the Complaint is
dismissed.

Leave to Amend

In his opposition, the Plaintiff informally requests leave to amend
the Complaint with respect to the allegations regarding the
Letter's failure to disclose whether interest was accruing and to
add an allegation that the Letter violates 15 U.S.C. Section 1692e
because it falsely implies that the Defendant has a legal right to
collect fees and other charges. The Plaintiff did not submit a
proposed amended complaint.

As an initial matter, Judge Irizarry notes, the Plaintiff's request
is deficient procedurally because he has failed to make a proper
motion to amend the Complaint. Additionally, the Plaintiff's
failure to submit a proposed amended complaint provides justifiable
grounds upon which the Court may deny his request.

In any event, amendment would be futile, Judge Irizarry states. As
set forth, the Plaintiff fails to plead a claim under Section 1692e
based on his allegations regarding the Letter's representation of
interest accrual. Significantly, he does not explain how amendment
would cure the deficiencies with respect to this claim.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff's request to amend the Complaint as to
the current allegations under Section 1692e is denied.

The Plaintiff's proposed amendment regarding the Letter's
purportedly misleading statement that the Defendant has a legal
right to collect fees and other charges also fails, Judge Irizarry
holds. Judge Irizarry adds that the Plaintiff's reliance on cases
from the Third and Seventh Circuits, which are not binding on the
Court, is unpersuasive. Accordingly, leave to amend to add
allegations regarding the Letter's reference to fees and other
charges is denied.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Defendant's motion for judgment on the
pleadings is granted; leave to amend the Complaint is denied, and
the Complaint is dismissed.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum & Order dated June 28,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4f46shpm from
Leagle.com.


FREQUENCY THERAPEUTICS: Lieff Cabraser Reminds of Aug. 2 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP on July 13
disclosed that class action litigation has been filed on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Frequency Therapeutics, Inc. ("Frequency" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:FREQ) between November 16, 2020 and March 22, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Frequency common stock
during the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as
lead plaintiff by no later than August 2, 2021. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the actions
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

Frequency investors who wish to learn more about the litigation and
how to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should click here or
contact Sharon M. Lee of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at
1-800-541-7358.

Background on the Frequency Securities Class Litigation

Frequency, headquartered in Woburn, Massachusetts, is
pharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing a
treatment for severe sensorineural hearing loss ("SNHL") named
"FX-322." Frequency has conducted multiple clinical trials
assessing the safety and efficacy of FX-322, the most significant
of which was a Phase 2a trial, which began in October 2019.

The actions allege that shortly after launching the Phase 2a trial,
Frequency and its Chief Executive Officer, David L. Lucchino,
learned that the Phase 2a trial results revealed no discernible
difference between FX-22 and the placebo. As the Company continued
to release positive statements regarding FX-322's prospects,
Lucchino sold a significant amount of his shares of Frequency stock
for over $10.5 million in total proceeds.

On March 23, 2021, Frequency announced disappointing interim Phase
2a results for FX-322, revealing that subjects with mild to
moderate SNHL did not demonstrate improvements in hearing measures
versus the placebo. On this news, the price of Frequency common
stock fell $28.30 per share, or 78%, from a closing price of $36.29
on March 22, 2021 to $7.99 per share on March 23, 2021, on
extremely heavy trading volume.

                     About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, Nashville, and Munich is an internationally
recognized law firm committed to advancing the rights of investors
and promoting corporate responsibility worldwide.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for fourteen years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated unusual
dedication and creativity." Law360 has selected Lieff Cabraser as
one of the Top 50 law firms nationwide for litigation, highlighting
our firm's "laser focus" and noting that our firm routinely finds
itself "facing off against some of the largest and strongest
defense law firms in the world." Benchmark Litigation has named
Lieff Cabraser one of the "Top 10 Plaintiffs' Firms in America."

For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
https://www.lieffcabraser.com/.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contact for Media Inquiries Only
Sharon M. Lee
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Telephone: 1-800-541-7358 [GN]

FRITO-LAY NORTH: Smith Files Mislabeling Suit Over Corn Chips
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Frito-Lay North America, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 3:21-cv-04863-JCS (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2021) arises from
the Defendant's misrepresentation of its corn chips under the
Tostitos brand in violation of the California Business &
Professions Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's front label
representations include "HINT OF LIME," a transparent cut-out of a
lime wedge with several drops representing lime juice, a green and
yellow color pattern and the statement, "Here's Another Hint -
Squeeze in More Flavor With Some Salsa." The representations
allegedly mislead consumers, including the Plaintiff, as to the
relative amount and quantity of lime ingredient. The Product's
"lime" taste is mainly from added limonene and citral, through the
isomers neral and geranial, and lacks the other compounds essential
to a lime's taste, added the suit.

As a result of the alleged false and misleading labeling, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately no less than
$4.29 for a 13 OZ bag, excluding tax, compared to other similar
products represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than the
price of the Product if it were represented in a non-misleading
way, asserts the complaint.

Frito-Lay North America, Inc. manufactures, markets and sells corn
chips under the Tostitos brand.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Shub, Esq.
          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          SHUB LAW FIRM LLC
          134 Kings Hwy E Fl 2
          Haddonfield, NJ 08033
          Telephone: (856) 772-7200
          E-mail: jshub@shublawyers.com
                  klaukaitis@shublawyers.com

               - and -

          Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
          SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 409
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 268-7080
          E-mail: spencer@spencersheehan.com

FULL TRUCK: Howard G. Smith Reminds of September 10 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on July 14 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. ("FTA" or the "Company") (NYSE: YMM)
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement
and prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued
in connection with the Company's June 2021 initial public offering
("IPO" or the "Offering"). FTA investors have until September 10,
2021 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their FTA investments are encouraged
to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss their
legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

In June 2021, FTA sold about 82.5 million American Depositary
Shares ("ADSs" or "shares") in its IPO for $19 per share, raising
nearly $1.6 billion in new capital.

On July 5, 2021, FTA reported that the Company was subject to a
review by the Cyberspace Administration of China ("CAC") and that
"FTA's Yunmanman apps and Huochebang apps . . . are required to
suspend new user registration in China during the review period."

On this news, the Company's ADS price fell $1.27 per share, or
6.67%, to close at $17.75 per share on July 6, 2021, significantly
below the IPO price, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that the
Registration Statement made materially false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) FTA's apps
Yunmanman and Huochebang would face an imminent cybersecurity
review by the CAC; (2) the CAC would require FTA to suspend new
user registration; (3) FTA needed to conduct a "comprehensive
self-examination of any cybersecurity risks"; (4) FTA needed to
"continue to improve its cybersecurity systems and technology
capabilities"; and (5) as a result, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

If you purchased FTA securities, have information or would like to
learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning
this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

View source version on businesswire.com:
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210713006035/en/

Contacts

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
Howard G. Smith, Esquire
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com [GN]

FULL TRUCK: Kessler Topaz Reminds of September 10 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on July 14
disclosed that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York against Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. (NYSE: YMM)
("FTA") on behalf of those who purchased or acquired FTA securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with FTA's June 2021 initial public offering (the
"IPO").

Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired FTA
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement
issued in connection with the IPO may, no later than September 10,
2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/full-truck-alliance-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=full_truck_alliance

FTA purports to, with its subsidiaries, operate a digital freight
platform that connects shippers with truckers to facilitate
shipments in the People's Republic of China ("PRC"). It offers
freight listing, matching, and brokerage services and online
transaction services, as well as various value-added services.
Yunmanman and Huochebang were founded in 2013 and 2011,
respectively, and both companies were digital freight platforms in
the PRC prior to their merger which created FTA in 2017.

On May 27, 2021, FTA filed a Registration Statement on a Form F-1,
which in combination with subsequent amendments of Forms F-1/A
filed pursuant to Rule 424(b)(1), would be used for the IPO. On
June 23, 2021, FTA filed its final prospectus for the IPO on a Form
424B4, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO,
FTA sold approximately 82,500,000 American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") at $19.00 per ADS.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement failed to
disclose the specific known concerns and issues with FTA's
practices and apparent non-compliance with relevant technology
laws. Specifically, the Registration Statement failed to disclose
FTA's non-compliance with the relevant regulations or the potential
penalties for its non-compliance—including a suspension of new
user additions during a cybersecurity review.

The truth was revealed on July 5, 2021, when FTA issued a press
release entitled "Full Truck Alliance Announces Cybersecurity
Review in China" which announced, in part, that "the Cybersecurity
Review Office ("CRO") of the Cyberspace Administration of China
["CAC"] . . . has initiated a cybersecurity review of FTA's
Yunmanman apps and Huochebang apps. In order to facilitate the
review and prevent the expansion of potential risks, these mobile
apps are required to suspend new user registration in China during
the review period."

Following this news, FTA's ADS price fell $1.27 per ADS, or over
6%, to close at $17.75 on July 6, 2021, the next trading day.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement contained
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) FTA's Yunmanman and Huochebang apps would face an imminent
cybersecurity review by the CAC; (2) the CAC would require FTA to
suspend new user registration; (3) FTA needed to conduct a
"comprehensive self-examination of any cybersecurity risks"; (4)
FTA needed to "continue to improve its cybersecurity systems and
technology capabilities"; and (5) as a result, the defendants'
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times and negligently prepared.

FTA investors may, no later than September 10, 2021, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the class
member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to share
in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]

FULL TRUCK: Robbins Geller Reminds of September 10 Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Full Truck Alliance class action lawsuit charges Full Truck
Alliance Co. Ltd. (NYSE: YMM), certain of its top executives, and
the underwriters of Full Truck Alliance's June 2021 initial public
offering ("IPO") with violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
Filed in the Eastern District of New York on July 12, 2021 and
captioned Pratyush v. Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd., No.
21-cv-03903, the Full Truck Alliance class action lawsuit seeks to
represent purchasers of Full Truck Alliance securities pursuant
and/or traceable to the registration statement and related
prospectus (collectively, the "Registration Statement") issued in
connection with Full Truck Alliance's IPO.

If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Full Truck Alliance class action lawsuit, please
provide your information by clicking here. You can also contact
attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or
via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the
Full Truck Alliance class action lawsuit must be filed with the
court no later than September 10, 2021.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Full Truck Alliance class action lawsuit
alleges that Full Truck Alliance's Registration Statement made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(i) Full Truck Alliance's apps Yunmanman and Huochebang would face
an imminent cybersecurity review by the Cyberspace Administration
of China ("CAC"); (ii) the CAC would require Full Truck Alliance to
suspend new user registration; (iii) Full Truck Alliance needed to
conduct a "comprehensive self-examination of any cybersecurity
risks"; (iv) Full Truck Alliance needed to "continue to improve its
cybersecurity systems and technology capabilities"; and (v) as a
result, defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times and negligently prepared.

On July 5, 2021, Full Truck Alliance issued a press release
entitled "Full Truck Alliance Announces Cybersecurity Review in
China" which announced, in pertinent part, that "pursuant to an
announcement issued by the Cybersecurity Review Office ("CRO") of
the [CAC] on July 5, 2021, CRO has initiated a cybersecurity review
of [Full Truck Alliance]'s Yunmanman apps and Huochebang apps. In
order to facilitate the review and prevent the expansion of
potential risks, these mobile apps are required to suspend new user
registration in China during the review period." Full Truck
Alliance further revealed that it was "conducting a comprehensive
self-examination of any potential cybersecurity risks and will
continue to improve its cybersecurity systems and technology
capabilities." On this news, the price of Full Truck Alliance's
American Depository Shares fell more than 6%,

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Full Truck
Alliance securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration
Statement issued in connection with Full Truck Alliance's IPO to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Full Truck Alliance class
action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the
greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative
class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A
lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in
directing the Full Truck Alliance class action lawsuit. The lead
plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Full
Truck Alliance class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share
in any potential future recovery of the Full Truck Alliance class
action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for
investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any
other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/firm.html for more information. [GN]

GEODIS LOGISTICS: Slade Labor Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled NAJEE SLADE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. GEODIS LOGISTICS, LLC; GEODIS USA,
LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 21CV382880, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Santa Clara to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on July 14, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 5:21-cv-05390 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the Unfair Competition Law including
failure to provide required meal periods, failure to provide
required rest periods, failure to pay minimum wage and overtime
wages, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to pay
all wages due to discharged and quitting employees, and unfair
competition.

Geodis Logistics, LLC is a logistics company based in Tennessee.

Geodis USA, LLC is a logistics company based in Pennsylvania. [BN]

The Defendants are represented by:          
         
         Noah J. Woods, Esq.
         LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
         501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
         San Diego, CA 92101-3577
         Telephone: (619) 232-0441
         Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
         E-mail: nwoods@littler.com

GETSWIFT LTD: Phi Finney Discloses Settlement in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A conditional settlement agreement has been reached in the class
action against GetSwift Limited (GetSwift) and Mr Joel Macdonald
(Respondents) in the Federal Court of Australia Proceeding NSD580
of 2018.

The settlement agreement was entered into on 13 July 2021 between
the Representative Applicant, Mr Raffaele Webb, GetSwift, Mr
Macdonald and GetSwift's parent company, GetSwift Technologies
Limited (GTL), without any admission of liability by the
Respondents.

In 2020, GetSwift Limited ceased trading on the Australian
Securities Exchange following shareholder and Federal Court
approval of a restructure under which GTL acquired all GetSwift
shares. GTL is listed on the Canadian NEO stock exchange.

The settlement agreement is conditional upon the parties entering
into a comprehensive deed of settlement, as well as approval of the
settlement terms by the Federal Court (as required in accordance
with section 33V of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth)).

Under the proposed settlement structure, the Respondents and GTL
will make a modest upfront payment into the settlement pool.
Further sums will be contributed as a capped percentage of any
capital raisings (or a capped percentage of company revenue as a
backstop if no or limited funds are raised) over a 3-year period.

Mr Tim Finney, Director of Phi Finney McDonald, said, "The
settlement structure adopts a creative approach that has regard to
GTL's and the Respondents' financial position, while seeking to
ensure that group members in the class action are well-placed to
benefit from any recovery in the business's fortunes over the next
three years.

This settlement avoids further legal costs on both sides and allows
GTL to focus on recapitalising and growing its business, with group
members to benefit from any success. In the circumstances, we
consider the proposed settlement to be in the best interests of
GTL, its investors, and group members in the class action."

Further information will be provided in due course including in
relation to the Federal Court settlement approval process. If you
have any questions in the interim, please contact Phi Finney
McDonald at classactions@phifinneymcdonald.com. [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: Singh Bid for Class Certification Stricken
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GURMINDER SINGH v. GOOGLE
LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-03734-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Beth
Labson Freeman entered an order striking the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification for failing to comply with this Court's
Standing Orders Re Civil Cases.

The Court has provided detailed, specific instructions regarding
the use of footnotes. Footnotes shall be no less than 12-point type
and shall be double-spaced. Footnotes shall not be used to cite to
legal authorities or evidence. All citations to legal authorities
or evidence shall be in the body of the brief. Excessive footnotes
will be disregarded. In general, no more than 5 footnotes per brief
should be necessary.

Google is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/36LHbtk at no extra charge.[CC]

GOOGLE LLC: Singh Suit Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GURMINDER SINGH,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
GOOGLE, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-03734-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order certifying the following Class and
naming Plaintiff as Class representative:

   "All persons and entities throughout the United States who
   advertised through Google's AdWords program and paid for
   clicks on their Google AdWords advertisement(s) at any time
   since June 1, 2012 (the "Class Period"), where such clicks
   originated from Google's Display Network."

Excluded from the above Class are the following individuals and/or
entities: the Court, and all Court personnel involved in the
handling of his case; Defendant, Google, LLC, f/k/a Google, Inc.
("Google" or "Defendant") and its parent company, subsidiaries,
affiliates, officers, directors, and any entity in which Google has
a controlling interest; all individuals who timely elect to be
excluded from this proceeding using the correct protocol for opting
out; and any attorneys or other employees of any law firms hired,
retained, and/or appointed by or on behalf of the named Plaintiff
to represent him and/or any proposed Class members or proposed
Class in this lawsuit.

The Plaintiff also moves, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), for the
appointment of Miller Shah LLP and Edgar Law Firm LLC as Class
Counsel.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for: (a) violations of the Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200, et
seq., and (b) the False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code sections 17500, et seq.

Google is an American multinational technology company that
specializes in Internet-related services and products, which
include online advertising technologies, a search engine, cloud
computing, software, and hardware.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion to certify class dated July 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3wTzEmR
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James C. Shah, Esq.
          Kolin C. Tang, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          201 Filbert Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94133
          Telephone: (856) 858-1770
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: jcshah@millershah.com
                  kctang@millershah.com


HARTFORD FIRE: Seattle Symphony Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Seattle Symphony Orchestra, et al., filed an appeal from
a court ruling entered in the lawsuit styled MARIO D. CHORAK DMD
PS, et al., Plaintiffs v. HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMNPANY, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-00627-BJR, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 19, 2020, the
lawsuit alleges that Hartford wrongfully denied claims for coverage
relating to COVID-19 pandemic and/or orders issued by Governor Jay
Inslee, other Governors, and other civil authorities.

Due to COVID-19 and a state-ordered mandated closure, the Plaintiff
cannot provide dental orthodontic services. The Plaintiff intended
to rely on its business insurance to keep its business as a going
concern, says the complaint. The Plaintiff says it filed the
lawsuit to ensure that it and other similarly-situated
policyholders receive the insurance benefits to which they are
entitled and for which they paid.

Seattle Symphony Orchestra, et al., now seek a review of the
Court's Order dated May 28, 2021, granting Defendants' motion to
dismiss and motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The appellate case is captioned as Seattle Symphony Orchestra, et
al. v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 21-35487, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on
June 24, 2021.

The briefing scheduled in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants BH Music Center and Seattle Symphony Orchestra
Mediation Questionnaire was due July 1, 2021;

   -- Appellants BH Music Center and Seattle Symphony Orchestra
opening brief is due on August 23, 2021;

   -- Appellee Hartford Fire Insurance Company answering brief is
due on September 22, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants SEATTLE SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA, DBA Seattle
Symphony, and BH MUSIC CENTER are represented by:

          Ian S. Birk, Esq.
          Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          E-mail: ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
                  awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Franklin D. Cordell, Esq.
          GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP
          600 University Street, Suite 2915
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 467-6477
          E-mail: fcordell@gordontilden.com  

               - and -

          Kasey Dawn Huebner, Esq.
          MILLS MEYERS SWARTLING
          1000 Second Avenue, 30th Floor
          Seattle, WA 98104-1064
          Telephone: (206) 382-1000
          E-mail: khuebner@gordontilden.com  

Defendant-Appellee HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented
by:

          Matthew S. Adams, Esq.
          FORSBERG & UMLAUF, PS
          901 5th Avenue, Suite 1400
          Seattle, WA 98164
          Telephone: (206) 689-8500
          E-mail: madams@foum.law

               - and -

          Sarah Gordon, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-8005
          E-mail: sgordon@steptoe.com

HAWAI'I: Chatman Wins Bid for Provisional Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY CHATMAN, FRANCISCO
ALVARADO, ZACHARY GRANADOS, TYNDALE MOBLEY, and JOSEPH DEGUAIR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MAX
N. OTANI, Director of State of Hawai'i, Department of Public
Safety, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:21-cv-00268-JAO-KJM
(D. Haw.), the Hon. Judge Jill A. Otake entered an order:

   1. granting the plaintiffs' motion for provisional class
      certification; and

   2. granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs'
      motion for preliminary injunction and temporary
      restraining order.

This putative class action concerns the alleged conditions in
Hawaii's prisons and jails that have contributed to COVID-19
outbreaks. The Plaintiffs contend that the Department of Public
Safety, headed by Defendant Max Otani, has mishandled the pandemic
and failed to implement its Pandemic Response Plan in violation of
their Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Hawaii's state prisons and jails have been plagued by COVID-19
outbreaks at five of its eight facilities, resulting in the
infection of more than 50% of the inmate population (1,532 inmates
out of a population of approximately 3,000) and 272 DPS staff, and
seven deaths.

The Hawaii Department of Public Safety is a department within the
executive branch of the government of the U.S. state of Hawaii. It
is headquartered in the 919 Ala Moana Boulevard building in
Honolulu, Hawaii.

The Plaintiffs are currently incarcerated or detained at DPS
correctional facilities in Hawai'i.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3kG7NnQ at no extra charge.[CC]

HILTON GRAND: Proposed Merger Lacks Info, Wheeler Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB WHEELER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HILTON GRAND VACATIONS, INC.; CYNTHIA M.
EGNOTOVICH; DINO J. BIANCO; JOAN K. CHOW; JANICE L. FIELDS; BRIAN
R. GAMACHE; ANDREW LANGHAM; and WILLIAM C. JOHNSON, Defendants,
Case No. 1:21-cv-00985-UNA (D. Del., July 2, 2021) alleges
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class seeks to
enjoin the vote on a proposed transaction, pursuant to which Hilton
Grand Vacations, Inc. (the "Company") will be acquired by Dakota
Holdings, Inc. ("Diamond"), which indirectly owns all of the
interests in Diamond Resorts International, Inc. and its
subsidiaries, including Diamond Resorts Corporation (collectively,
"DRI"), from investment funds and vehicles managed by affiliates of
Apollo Global Management, Inc. (together with its subsidiaries,
"Apollo"), funds managed by affiliates of Reverence Capital
Partners ("Reverence"), and other Diamond stockholders, through
HGV's subsidiary Hilton Grand Vacations Borrower LLC ("Merger Sub")
(the "Proposed Transaction").

On March 10, 2021, HGV announced its entry into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger dated March 10, 2021 (the "Merger Agreement"). Under
the terms of the Merger Agreement, each Diamond stockholder will be
issued 0.32066 shares of Hilton common stock, plus cash in lieu of
any fractional shares, for each share of Diamond common stock they
own (the "Merger Consideration").

On April 15, 2021, HGV filed a Schedule 14A Preliminary Proxy
Statement (the "Proxy Statement") with the SEC. The Proxy
Statement, which recommends that HGV stockholders vote in favor of
the Proposed Transaction, allegedly omits or misrepresents material
information critical and essential to that decision. Defendants
authorized the issuance of the false and misleading Proxy Statement
in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

It is imperative that the material information omitted from the
Proxy Statement is disclosed to the Company's stockholders prior to
the forthcoming stockholder vote so that they can properly exercise
their corporate suffrage rights, says the suit.

Hilton Grand Vacations Inc. develops, markets, sells, and manager
timeshare resorts. The Company markets and sells vacation ownership
intervals, manages resorts located in leisure and urban
destinations, and operates a points-based vacation club. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          LONG LAW, LLC
          3828 Kennett Pike, Suite 208
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 729-9100
          E-mail: BDLong@longlawde.com

HOMEMADE TAQUERIA: Underpays Delivery Workers, Santamaria Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR SANTAMARIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. HOMEMADE TAQUERIA CORP., HOMEMADE TAQUERIA
II CORP., HOMEMADE TAQUERIA III CORP., HOMEMADE TAQUERIA IV CORP.,
HOMEMADE TAQUERIA V CORP., HOMEMADE TAQUERIA VI CORP., HOMEMADE
TAQUERIA VII CORP., HOMEMADE TAQUERIA VIII CORP., JOHN DOE CORP.,
JOHN DOE II CORP., JOHN DOE III CORP., JOHN DOE IV CORP. and
HILARIO MORALES, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03562 (E.D.N.Y., June
24, 2021) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against
Defendants' unlawful actions and to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, statutory damages, liquidated
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney' fees, and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law
and the NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.

According to the complaint, Santamaria worked as a delivery worker
for Defendants at several restaurants throughout Brooklyn, Queens,
and Long Island, New York where he regularly worked about 48 hours
per week, but sometimes worked up to 84 hours in a week. Allegedly,
Santamaria did not receive overtime pay at one and one half times
his regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40, but rather was
paid at a "straight time" rate for all hours worked over 40. In
addition, Santamaria was not paid spread-of-hours pay and was not
provided with wage notices at the time of hire or accurate wage
statements at the end of each pay period. Also, Defendants paid
Santamaria below the minimum wage during the majority of his
employment, the suit asserts.

The Defendants employed Santamaria from approximately September
2015 to January 2016 and from approximately January 2019 through
May 2021.

Homemade Taqueria is a New York-based chain of Mexican
restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Laura Rodriguez, Esq.
          PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue, 17th Fl.
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583-9500
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
                  rodriguez@pechmanlaw.com

ICC ASSOCIATES: Fails to Provide Proper Wages, Salomon Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO SALOMON, TOMAS INTERIANO and OTTO LUNA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ICC
ASSOCIATES INC. and JOSEPH BORGER as an individual, Case No.
1:21-cv-03567 (E.D.N.Y., June 24, 2021) is brought by the
Plaintiffs, seeking to recover damages for the Defendants'
egregious violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs'
overtime wages, failed to provide with a written notice as required
by the NYLL, and failed to provide with wages statements upon each
payment of wages.

Plaintiffs Salomon, Interiano and Luna were employed by the
Defendants with primary duties as cement masons, carpenters, and
other miscellaneous duties, from March 2008 until June 2018, from
December 2012 until August 2020, and from August 2015 until January
2021, respectively.

ICC Associates Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
New York with principal executive offices in the state.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
          Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

INNOVATIVE HEIGHTS: Stauffer's Bid to Remand BIPA Suit Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MADISYN STAUFFER, on behalf of herself an
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INNOVATIVE HEIGHTS
FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS, LLC, AND PATHFINDER SOFTWARE, LLC D/B/A
PATHFINDER SOFTWARE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:20-CV-01332-MAB
(S.D. Ill.), Magistrate Judge Mark A. Beatty of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois grants the Plaintiff's
motion to remand.

The Plaintiff originally filed her complaint in the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois, on April 29, 2019,
alleging that Defendant Innovative Heights collected and stored her
biometric identifiers (e.g., fingerprints) in violation of the
Illinois Biometric Privacy Act. The Plaintiff amended her state
court complaint on Nov. 27, 2019, to include Pathfinder as a second
Defendant in addition to Innovative Heights (Case No.
3:20-cv-00046-MAB).

In amending her complaint, the Plaintiff alleged she represents two
classes: one consisting of individuals whose biometric information
and identifiers were collected or otherwise obtained by Innovative
Heights ("Innovative Heights class") and one consisting of
individuals whose biometric information and identifiers were
collected or otherwise obtained by Pathfinder ("CenterEdge class").
She alleged that Pathfinder controls and operates the system and
database in which Innovative Heights' employees' fingerprints were
stored and like Innovative Heights, Pathfinder never informed her
of the specific purpose of and the period for which her
fingerprints were being stored, collected, and/or used. She alleges
that both Defendants Innovative Heights and Pathfinder have
violated Sections 15(a) and 15(b) of BIPA while scanning and
storing her and other class members' fingerprints for timekeeping
and other purposes.

On Jan. 10, 2020, Pathfinder removed the case to the Southern
District of Illinois pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA"). Soon after, Pathfinder filed a motion to dismiss and then
the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand. In the Court's August 19,
2020 Order, the Court denied Pathfinder's motion to dismiss, while
granting (in part) the Plaintiff's motion to remand, ordering that
the Plaintiff's Section 15(a) BIPA claims be remanded to state
court after the Court held that the Plaintiff did not have Article
III standing for these claims.

In December 2020, Pathfinder removed the Plaintiff's Section 15(a)
claims once again to this Court, while the Plaintiff's Section
15(b) claims continued in a separate, related case. Pathfinder
removed the Plaintiff's 15(a) claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1446(b)(3), arguing that a recent Seventh Circuit case supported
removal.

On Jan. 13, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, arguing
that removal of her Section 15(a) claims was improper. Pathfinder
filed its response on Feb. 16, 2021, and the Plaintiff filed a
reply brief on March 2, 2021.

In the Dec. 14, 2020 notice of removal, Pathfinder contends that
re-removal of the Plaintiff's Section 15(a) claims is proper, as a
recent Seventh Circuit case, Fox v. Dakkota Integrated Systems,
LLC, 980 F.3d 1146 (7th Cir. 2020), constitutes "other paper" under
28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3) because this case resolved a legal
uncertainty concerning federal jurisdiction. But, even if Fox is
not an "order or other paper" as defined by Section 1446(b)(3),
Pathfinder asserts that Fox ultimately is an intervening change in
the law, which also allows for re-removal of the Plaintiff's
Section 15(a) claims.

The Plaintiff disagrees and argues in her motion to remand that Fox
does not constitute an "order or other paper" under Section
1446(b)(3), but, even if it did, Fox still does not support Article
III standing for her Section 15(a) claims. Additionally, the
Plaintiff argues she is entitled to fees for this second removal of
her Section 15(a) claims, as this second removal is improper.

Judge Beatty notes that a generous reading of Fox indicates that
there are some factual similarities to the present case. Both the
Fox plaintiff and the current Plaintiff were required to clock in
and out of work using a timekeeping system that stored their
biometric information. Additionally, both cases involve a similar
legal issue, as the Fox plaintiff and the current Plaintiff bring
Section 15(a) and (b) claims against their employer who scanned and
stored their biometric information in violation of BIPA.

The similarities stop there, as the Fox plaintiff was also a member
of a union, which impacts the Article III standing analysis, Judge
Beatty holds. Additionally, the procedural posture of the current
matter and Fox are also different, in that the Fox defendant
appealed the district judge's remand of the Section 15(a) claims
(for lack of Article III standing) to the Seventh Circuit while
Pathfinder seeks re-removal through Section 1445(b)(3).

Additionally, and most importantly for purposes of removal pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3), the defendants in Fox and the
present matter are completely different entities, Judge Beatty
finds. Dakkota Integrated Systems is an automotive supplier with
several locations within the Midwest. Defendant Innovative Heights
owns and operates a "Sky Zone" facility in Fairview Heights,
Illinois, in which people can play Ultimate Dodgeball and Laser
Tag, for example. Defendant Pathfinder is a company that controls
and operates the system and database in which Defendant Innovative
Heights' employees' fingerprints were stored.

Judge Beatty holds that the Defendant is correct that Fox, and
cases throughout this Circuit, have clarified that a plaintiff has
Article III standing for her Section 15(a) claims when the
plaintiff alleges a defendant violates the "full panoply" of its
Section 15(a) duties.

Judge Beatty also points out that in Hunter v. Automated Health
Systems, Inc., No. 20-C-3134, 2020 WL 4812712 (N.D.Ill. Aug. 17,
2020), the Northern District of Illinois confronted a similar
question to the one at issue here. Specifically, the Hunter
defendant attempted re-removal of a BIPA case after the Seventh
Circuit issued its decision in Bryant v. Compass Group USA, Inc,
which held that the Bryant plaintiff's Section 15(b) claims had
Article III standing for federal jurisdiction. The court in Hunter,
however, held that Bryant did not constitute an "order or other
paper" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3) removal, as
Bryant did not involve the same defendant as Hunter. In doing so,
the court highlighted that to allow a filing in another suit to
restart the 30-day time limit would have the effect of belatedness
by allowing removal years after the suit had been proceeding in a
state court, because of the filing of another suit in another
court.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff's motion will be granted, as
Defendant Pathfinder did not properly remove the Plaintiff's
Section 15(a) claims and, therefore, the Court does not have
jurisdiction over these claims.

As a final matter, the Plaintiff requests fees in her motion to
remand, which the Defendant opposes. The Plaintiff argues that
Pathfinder lacks an "objectively reasonable basis" for removing
this case, once again, to federal court; therefore, the Court
should exercise discretion and award fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1447(c).

While the Court recognizes that there are defects in Pathfinder's
notice of removal and this second removal has delayed the
proceedings, the Court is persuaded by the reasoning in Hunter that
due to the novelty of the issue, and the developing BIPA case law,
the Court declines to award fees or costs to the Plaintiff for
Defendant Pathfinder's second removal.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted. The
Plaintiff's request for fees is denied. The Court once again
remands the Plaintiff's Section 15(a) BIPA claims as they pertain
to Defendants Pathfinder and Innovative Heights to the Twentieth
Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, Illinois.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated June 28,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/cjutcp37 from
Leagle.com.


INTRALINKS INC: Studio 1220 Appeals Case Dismissal to Ninth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Studio 1220, Inc. filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled STUDIO 1220, INC., Plaintiff v.
INTRALINKS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-02892-VC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
a class action against the Defendants for violation of the
California Business & Professions Code and fraudulent concealment.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated entities who submitted Paycheck Protection Program (PPP)
loan applications to the Defendants, allege that the Defendants are
engaged in unlawful, fraudulent and unfair business acts and
practices regarding their advertisement, offer, processing,
approval and funding of PPP loan applications. The Plaintiffs claim
that the Defendants secretly prioritized PPP loan applications of
greater than $150,000 before processing applications equal to or
less than $150,000, which is contrary to their advertisement that
they would process, approve and fund PPP loan applications in the
amounts of equal to or less than $150,000 fairly and on a
first-come, first-served basis, according to U.S. Treasury
guidance. The Defendants' wrongful conduct caused irreparable harm
to countless small businesses and workers who actually needed the
temporary funding of the PPP loans to make payroll, retain their
employees, and stay afloat during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order and Judgment
dated May 25, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss with
prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as Studio 1220, Inc., et al. v.
Intralinks, Inc., et al., Case No. 21-16066, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 24, 2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Studio 1220, Inc. Mediation Questionnaire was due
July 1, 2021;

   -- Transcript shall be ordered by July 23, 2021;

   -- Transcript is due on August 23, 2021;

   -- Appellant Studio 1220, Inc. opening brief is due on October
1, 2021;

   -- Appellee Intralinks, Inc. answering brief is due on November
1, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant STUDIO 1220, INC., a California corporation, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented
by:

          Patrick N. Keegan, Esq.
          KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP
          2292 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100
          Carlsbad, CA 92008
          Telephone: (760) 929-9303
          E-mail: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com

Defendant-Appellee INTRALINKS, INC., a Delaware corporation, is
represented by:

          Janice Patrice Brown, Esq.
          Arlene Rae Yang, Esq.
          MEYERS NAVE
          600 B Street, Suite 1650
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 330-1700
          E-mail: jbrown@meyersnave.com
                  ayang@meyersnave.com   

               - and -

          Matthew B. Nazareth, Esq.
          MEYERS NAVE
          707 Wilshire Boulevard, 24th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 265-3770

IRVING K MOTOR: Williamson Sues Over Unsolicited Voice Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE WILLIAMSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IRVING K MOTOR COMPANY LLC d/b/a
CLAY COOLEY KIA, Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-01599-L (N.D. Tex.,
July 9, 2021) brings this complaint as a class action against the
Defendant for its alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant has transmitted multiple
prerecorded voice messages to his cellular telephone number ending
in 3132 from as early as 2017 through 2020 in an attempt to promote
its products and services. The Defendant allegedly engaged in
utilizing prerecorded voice calls to solicit its business without
first obtaining the required express written consent.

According to the complaint, the Defendant caused similar
prerecorded messages to be sent to other individuals within the
judicial district. As a result of the Defendant's unsolicited
prerecorded messages, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated
individuals have suffered harm in the form of invasion of privacy,
aggravation, annoyance, inconvenience, and disruption to their
daily life. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks actual and statutory damages
for herself and other similarly situated individuals, as well as
treble damages, an injunction requiring the Defendant to cease all
unsolicited call activity without obtaining consent first, and
other relief as the Court deems necessary.

Irving K Motor Company LLC d/b/a Clay Cooley Kia operates a car
dealership selling new and used cars as well as vehicle
maintenance, service and parts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          Angelica Gentile, Esq.
          SHAMIS GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Tel: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
                  agentile@shamisgentile.com

JAMES RIVER: Frank R. Cruz Reminds of September 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz on July 13 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired James River Group Holdings,
Ltd. ("James River" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: JRVR) common stock
between August 1, 2019 and May 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). James River investors have until September 7, 2021 to
file a lead plaintiff motion.

On October 8, 2019, after the market closed, James River disclosed
that it had delivered a notice of early cancellation of all
policies issued to its largest customer, Rasier LLC.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $11.06, or over 23%,
to close at $37.88 per share on October 9, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.

Then, on May 5, 2021, James River announced its first quarter 2021
financial results, reporting "$170.0 million of unfavorable
development in Commercial Auto, primarily driven by a previously
canceled account that has been in runoff since 2019." According to
Bloomberg, the Company announced that it was seeking to raise $175
million through public equity offering, which was priced at "the
sector's steepest discount ever."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $12.27, or 26%, to
close at $34.23 per share on May 6, 2021, thereby injuring
investors further.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) James River
had not adequately reserved for its Uber policies; (2) James River
was using an incorrect methodology for setting reserves that
materially understated the Company's true exposure to Uber claims;
(3) as a result, James River was forced to increase its unfavorable
reserves in subsequent quarters even after cancelling the Uber
policies; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased James River securities during the Class Period,
you may move the Court no later than September 7, 2021 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the Class
you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel
of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the
Class. If you purchased James River securities, have information or
would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Frank R. Cruz, of The Law
Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by email to
info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts:

The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, Los Angeles
Frank R. Cruz, 310-914-5007
fcruz@frankcruzlaw.com
www.frankcruzlaw.com [GN]

JAMES RIVER: Howard G. Smith Reminds of September 7 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the upcoming
September 7, 2021 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
case filed on behalf of investors who purchased James River Group
Holdings, Ltd. ("James River" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: JRVR)
common stock between August 1, 2019 and May 5, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Investors suffering losses on their James River investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss
their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or by email
to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

On October 8, 2019, after the market closed, James River disclosed
that it had delivered a notice of early cancellation of all
policies issued to its largest customer, Rasier LLC.

On this news, the Company's share price fell $11.06, or over 23%,
to close at $37.88 per share on October 9, 2019, thereby injuring
investors.

Then, on May 5, 2021, James River announced its first quarter 2021
financial results, reporting "$170.0 million of unfavorable
development in Commercial Auto, primarily driven by a previously
canceled account that has been in runoff since 2019." According to
Bloomberg, the Company announced that it was seeking to raise $175
million through public equity offering, which was priced at "the
sector's steepest discount ever."

On this news, the Company's share price fell $12.27, or 26%, to
close at $34.23 per share on May 6, 2021, thereby injuring
investors further.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) James River
had not adequately reserved for its Uber policies; (2) James River
was using an incorrect methodology for setting reserves that
materially understated the Company's true exposure to Uber claims;
(3) as a result, James River was forced to increase its unfavorable
reserves in subsequent quarters even after cancelling the Uber
policies; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its
business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired James River common stock
during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than
September 7, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff
if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the class
action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this
class action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of
Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020, by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. [GN]

JAMES RIVER: Kessler Topaz Reminds of September 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed against James
River Group Holdings, Ltd. (NASDAQ: JRVR) ("James River") on behalf
of those who purchased or acquired James River common stock between
August 1, 2019 and May 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or acquired James River
common stock during the Class Period may, no later than September
7, 2021, seek to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of
the class. For additional information or to learn how to
participate in this litigation please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP: James Maro, Esq. (484) 270-1453 or Adrienne Bell,
Esq. (484) 270-1435; toll free at (844) 887-9500; via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com; or click
https://www.ktmc.com/james-river-class-action-lawsuit?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=james_river

James River is a holding company that owns and operates a group of
specialty insurance and reinsurance companies. Its largest segment,
Excess and Surplus ("E&S") Lines insurance, focuses on insureds
that generally cannot purchase insurance from standard lines
insurers due to perceived risks related to their businesses.
Included in this E&S Lines segments is James River's Commercial
Auto Division. In 2014, James River ramped up its Commercial Auto
Division by underwriting a new type of insurance policy that
covered Rasier LLC ("Rasier"), a subsidiary of the ride-sharing
company, Uber Technologies, Inc. (together with Rasier, "Uber").
Until that time, ride-sharing insurance had only covered claims
incurred while ride-sharing drivers were transporting passengers
for Uber, thus leaving a gap in coverage for accidents caused by
ride-sharing drivers while they were not providing transportation
services for hire but were still logged on to the Uber applications
and available to accept a ride. Uber was James River's largest
contract and accounted for more than 25% of its premiums in 2019.

The Class Period commences on August 1, 2019, the day after James
River issued a press release after market hours that reported
"unfavorable reserve development of $2.3 million compared to
unfavorable reserve development of $2.2 million in the prior year,"
which included $1.2 million of unfavorable reserve development in
the E&S Lines segment. At the beginning of the Class Period, the
defendants assured investors that James River was adequately
reserved against its Uber policies and that the defendants were
"comfortable" with James River's E&S Lines reserves. However, after
the market closed on October 8, 2019, James River announced that it
had delivered a notice of early cancellation, effective December
31, 2019, for all insurance policies issued to Uber, though James
River would remain contracted to provide coverage for future claims
related to the period the Uber polices were in effect. Throughout
the Class Period, the defendants repeatedly assured investors that
the legacy contract posed no challenges to James River.

The truth was revealed on May 5, 2021 when James River surprised
the market by disclosing an additional $170 million of unfavorable
reserves related to the Uber policies. In order to cover its
losses, James River announced that it was seeking to raise $175
million through a public equity offering, which was priced at "the
sector's steepest discount ever" according to Bloomberg.

Following this news, James River's stock price dropped $12.27 per
share, or 26.83%, from a closing price of $46.50 per share on May
5, 2021 to a closing price of $34.23 per share on May 6, 2021.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
defendants failed to disclose that: (1) James River had not
adequately reserved for its Uber policies; (2) James River was
using an incorrect methodology for setting reserves that materially
understated its true exposure to Uber claims; (3) as a result,
James River was forced to increase its unfavorable reserves in
subsequent quarters even after cancelling the Uber polices; and (4)
as a result, the defendants' statements about James River's
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

James River investors may, no later than September 7, 2021, seek to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class
through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class
members in directing the litigation. In order to be appointed as a
lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's
claim is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class. Your ability to
share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country involving
securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duties and other violations
of state and federal law. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP is a
driving force behind corporate governance reform, and has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and individual
investors from the United States and around the world. The firm
represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers (private
citizens who report fraudulent practices against the government and
share in the recovery of government dollars). The complaint in this
action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please
visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
James Maro, Jr., Esq.
Adrienne Bell, Esq.
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(844) 887-9500 (toll free)
info@ktmc.com [GN]

JAMES RIVER: Robbins Geller Reminds of Sept. 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers of James
River Group Holdings, Ltd. (NASDAQ: JRVR) common stock between
August 1, 2019 and May 5, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period") have
until September 7, 2021 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in
the James River Group class action lawsuit. The James River Group
class action lawsuit charges James River Group and certain of its
top executives with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The James River Group class action lawsuit was commenced on
July 9, 2021 in the Eastern District of Virginia and is captioned
Employees' Retirement Fund of the City of Fort Worth dba Fort Worth
Employees' Retirement Fund v. James River Group Holdings, Ltd., No.
21-cv-00444.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the James River Group
class action lawsuit, please provide your information by clicking
here. You can also contact attorney J.C. Sanchez of Robbins Geller
by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead
plaintiff motions for the James River Group class action lawsuit
must be filed with the court no later than September 7, 2021.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: In 2014, James River Group ramped up its
Commercial Auto Division by underwriting a new type of insurance
policy that covered Rasier LLC ("Rasier"), a subsidiary of the
ride-sharing company Uber Technologies, Inc. (together with Rasier,
"Uber").

The James River Group class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout
the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose that: (i) James River Group had not
adequately reserved for its Uber policies; (ii) James River Group
was using an incorrect methodology for setting reserves that
materially understated James River Group's true exposure to Uber
claims; (iii) as a result, James River Group was forced to increase
its unfavorable reserves in subsequent quarters even after
cancelling the Uber policies; and (iv) consequently, defendants'
statements about James River Group's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and/or misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis.

On October 8, 2019, James River Group announced that it had
delivered a notice of early cancellation for all insurance policies
issued to Uber, though James River Group would remain contracted to
provide coverage for future claims related to the period James
River Group's Uber policies were in effect (known as "runoff").
James River Group stated that "[the Uber] account ha[d] not met our
expectations for profitability." On this news, James River Group's
stock price declined more than 22%.

Then, on May 5, 2021, after alleged assurances to investors that
the legacy contract posed no challenges, James River Group
disclosed an additional $170 million of unfavorable reserves
related to the Uber policies. On a related conference call, James
River Group revealed that the increase was due to a change from
using "industry data, pricing data, experience data, average claim
severity data, and blended methodologies" to "using only our own
loss experience in our paid and incurred reserve projections . . .
[to calculate] a better and more conservative estimate of ultimate
losses on this account." Simultaneously, to cover its losses, James
River Group announced that it was seeking to raise $175 million
through a public equity offering, which was priced at "the sector's
steepest discount ever" according to Bloomberg. On this news, James
River Group's stock price fell an additional 26%, further damaging
investors.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased James River
Group common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the James River Group class action lawsuit. A
lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the James River
Group class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law
firm of its choice to litigate the James River Group class action
lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future
recovery of the James River Group class action lawsuit is not
dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for
investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any
other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/firm.html for more information. [GN]

JAMES RIVER: Thornton Law Reminds of September 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
The Thornton Law Firm alerts investors that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors of James River Group
Holdings, Ltd. (NASDAQ: JRVR). The case is currently in the lead
plaintiff stage. Investors who purchased JRVR stock or other
securities between August 1, 2019 and May 5, 2021 may contact the
Thornton Law Firm's investor protection team by visiting:
www.tenlaw.com/cases/JamesRiver for more information. Investors may
also email: investors@tenlaw.com or call 617-531-3917.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/JamesRiver.

The case alleges that James River and its senior executives made
misleading statements to investors and failed to disclose that: (1)
James River had not adequately reserved for its Uber policies; (2)
James River was using an incorrect methodology for setting reserves
that materially understated the Company's true exposure to Uber
claims; and (3) as a result, James River was forced to increase its
unfavorable reserves in subsequent quarters even after cancelling
the Uber policies.

Interested James River investors have until September 7, 2021 to
retain counsel and apply to be a lead plaintiff if they are
interested to do so. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other
investor class members in managing the class action. Investors do
not need to be a lead plaintiff in order to be a class member. If
investors choose to take no action, they can remain an absent class
member. The class has not yet been certified. Until certification
occurs, investors are not represented by an attorney. Thornton Law
Firm is not currently representing a plaintiff who filed a
complaint but is investigating the case on behalf of investors
interested in being a lead plaintiff.

FOR MORE INFORMATION: www.tenlaw.com/cases/JamesRiver.

Thornton Law Firm's securities attorneys are highly experienced in
representing investors in recovering damages caused by violations
of the securities laws. Its attorneys have established track
records litigating securities cases in courts throughout the
country and recovering losses on behalf of investors. This may be
considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter.

CONTACT:

Thornton Law Firm LLP
1 Lincoln Street
State Street Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
www.tenlaw.com/cases/JamesRiver [GN]

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Lawsuits Over Benzene in Sunscreens
------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple law firms have filed class actions against Johnson &
Johnson on behalf of purchasers of certain Aveeno and Neutrogena
sunscreens that have dangerous and unacceptable levels of the known
cancer-causing chemical, benzene.

Benzene, which is often found in crude oil and identified by the
smell associated with gasoline, is classified as a human carcinogen
by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, and a
Group 1 compound (i.e. "carcinogenic to humans") by the World
Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on
Cancer.

The Complaints Against J&J

The plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Johnson & Johnson failed to
include labeling that the sunscreens may contain benzene as an
active or inactive ingredient, rendering the products adulterated,
misbranded and unlawful for sale. The complaint also alleges that
Johnson & Johnson's conduct caused economic damages to the
plaintiffs, who relied on the ingredient list and advertising to
decide whether to purchase the sunscreen.

On July 14, 2021, Johnson & Johnson admitted the products were
unfit to sell due to unsafe levels of benzene, in a voluntary
recall of five aerosol sunscreens. Johnson & Johnson has recalled
all lots of these five products.

"Johnson & Johnson continued to market these sunscreen products as
safe and healthy for consumers after being alerted to dangerous
levels of a known, cancer-causing chemical," commented Keller
Lenkner Partner Warren Postman. "Companies that knowingly sell
cancer-causing products to the public should face serious
consequences for their actions, and we will pursue all available
remedies for consumers who were injured by Johnson & Johnson's
disregard for public health."

"When these kinds of safety failures occur, the American public
deserves a swift and transparent accounting of what happened and
what is being done to ensure it doesn't happen again," added
Beasley Allen attorney David Byrne. "Johnson & Johnson's response
falls far short of that."

Of course, this is not the first time Johnson & Johnson has been
accused of covering up a cancer-causing ingredient in one of its
products. Last year, the company was ordered to pay $750 million in
punitive damages to four cancer victims who charged that the
company's baby powder contained cancer-causing asbestos. [GN]

JOHNSON CONSUMER: Keller Lenkner Files Suit Against Subsidiary
--------------------------------------------------------------
National plaintiffs' law firm Keller Lenkner LLC filed a class
action against Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Johnson & Johnson
Consumer, Inc. (J&J) on behalf of purchasers of certain Aveeno and
Neutrogena sunscreens that have dangerous and unacceptable levels
of the known cancer-causing chemical, benzene.

Benzene, which is often found in crude oil and identified by the
smell associated with gasoline, is classified as a human carcinogen
by the United State Department of Health and Human Services, and a
Group 1 compound (i.e. "carcinogenic to humans") by the World
Health Organization and the International Agency for Research on
Cancer.

The plaintiffs' complaint alleges that J&J failed to include
labeling that the sunscreens may contain benzene as an active or
inactive ingredient, rendering the products adulterated, misbranded
and unlawful for sale. The complaint also alleges that J&J's
conduct caused economic damages to the plaintiffs, who relied on
the ingredient list and advertising to decide whether to purchase
the sunscreen.

On July 14, 2021, J&J admitted the products were unfit to sell due
to unsafe levels of benzene, in a voluntary recall of five aerosol
sunscreens. J&J has recalled all lots of these five products.

"Johnson & Johnson continued to market these sunscreen products as
safe and healthy for consumers after being alerted to dangerous
levels of a known, cancer-causing chemical," said Keller Lenkner
Partner Warren Postman. "Companies that knowingly sell
cancer-causing products to the public should face serious
consequences for their actions, and we will pursue all available
remedies for consumers who were injured by Johnson & Johnson's
disregard for public health."

The Keller Lenkner legal team includes partners Warren Postman and
Seth Meyer, as well as associate Alex Dravillas. Alexandra Walsh
and Kimberly Channick of Walsh Law PLLC and David B. Byrne III of
Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Mikes, P.C. are co-counsel
on behalf of the plaintiffs.

The action is Dominguez et al v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc.,
No. 3:21-cv-05419 and is filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

ABOUT KELLER LENKNER: Keller Lenkner LLC represents plaintiffs in
complex litigation matters in federal and state courts throughout
the nation. The firm acts for clients in many types of cases,
including class and mass actions, arbitrations, and multi-district
litigation matters. Its team includes four former law clerks at the
Supreme Court of the United States and former partners and
associates from the country's leading law firms. Since its founding
in 2018, the firm has secured results for more than 100,000
clients. [GN]

KANZHUN LIMITED: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of September 10 Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Kanzhun Limited ("Kanzhun") (NASDAQ: BZ) between June
11, 2021 and July 2, 2021. You are hereby notified that a
securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. To get more
information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/kanzhun-limited-information-request-form?prid=17653&wire=5

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

Kanzhun Limited NEWS - BZ NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (1) Kanzhun would
face an imminent cybersecurity review by the Chinese government
("CAC"); (2) the CAC would require Kanzhun to suspend new user
registration on its BOSS Zhipin app; (3) Kanzhun needed to "to
conduct a comprehensive examination of cybersecurity risks"; (4)
Kanzhun needed to "enhance its cybersecurity awareness and
technology capabilities"; and (5) as a result, Defendants'
statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at
all relevant times.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Kanzhun,
you have until September 10, 2021 to request that the Court appoint
you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery
doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Kanzhun securities between June
11, 2021 and July 2, 2021, you may be entitled to compensation
without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/kanzhun-limited-information-request-form?prid=17653&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.[GN]

KEUKA COLLEGE: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keuka College. The
case is styled as Arturo Stevez, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Keuka College, Case No. 1:21-cv-06169
(S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Keuka College -- https://www.keuka.edu/ -- is a private college in
Keuka Park, New York. Founded in 1890, the college emphasizes
experiential learning as well as career and pre-professional
education.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


KEURIG GREEN: Downing Appeals Ruling Striking Class Allegations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Matthew Downing filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in the lawsuit styled MATTHEW DOWNING, Individually and on
Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. KEURIG
GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:20-cv-11673-IT, in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a consumer who
purchased single-serve plastic coffee pods made by Defendant Keurig
Green Mountain, Inc. The Defendant markets and labels the Pods as
recyclable, but the Pods are not, in fact, recyclable as that term
is defined under applicable Federal Trade Commission guidance.
Keurig's alleged wrongful conduct giving rise to Plaintiff's claim
occurred almost entirely in Massachusetts, where Keurig's employees
responsible for corporate strategy, product design, and marketing
perform those functions.

The Plaintiff asserts a single consumer claim under M.G.L. c. 93A
Section 9 on behalf of a proposed national class of consumers who
were deceived by Keurig's deceptive labeling that Keurig
orchestrated from its headquarters in Massachusetts.

Before the court was Keurig's motion to dismiss based on lack of
subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Keurig moved in the alternative to strike
Downing's nationwide-class allegations or to dismiss his claim to
the extent he asserts it on behalf of anyone outside of
Massachusetts. The motion to dismiss was denied but to the extent
that Downing alleges injury on behalf of a nationwide class, those
claims were struck under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).

Mr. Downing now petitions for permission to appeal from the order
striking class allegations.

The question presented in this proposed appeal is whether the
district court erred in striking Plaintiff's class allegations on
behalf of out-of-state consumers even though the state law at issue
provides a remedy for such out-of-state consumers.

The appellate case is captioned as MATTHEW DOWNING, individually
and on behalf of proposed classes and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Petitioner v. KEURIG GREEN MOUNTAIN, INC.
Defendant-Respondent, Case No. 21-8023, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on June 25, 2021.[BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner MATTHEW DOWNING, individually and on behalf of
proposed classes and all others similarly situated, is represented
by:

          Edward F. Haber, Esq.
          Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq.
          Patrick J. Vallely, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          Two Seaport Lane, Sixth Floor
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          Facsimile: (617) 439-0134  
          E-mail: ehaber@shulaw.com
                  imcloughlin@shulaw.com
                  pvallely@shulaw.com

KOONS OF TYSONS: Sanchez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Workers
--------------------------------------------------------------
NORMA SANCHEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DEJAUN CORNILOUS MOORE, KOONS OF TYSONS
CORNER, INC., SAQUAN MOORE, and AUTO ASSETS, Defendants, Case No.
1:21-cv-00825 (E.D. Va., July 14, 2021) is a class action against
the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Virginia Wage Payment Law by failing to compensate the
Plaintiff and all others similarly situated overtime pay for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee
from 2017 until August 20, 2020.

Koons of Tysons Corner, Inc. is an automobile dealer in Tysons
Corner, Virginia.

Auto Assets is an automobile dealer with its principal place of
business in Vienna, Virginia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                                   
                                  
         
         Thomas F. Hennessy, Esq.
         THE HENNESSY LAW FIRM, PLLC
         4015 Chain Bridge Road, Suite G
         Fairfax, VA 22030
         Telephone: (703) 865-8836
         Facsimile: (703) 865-7633
         E-mail: thennessy@virginiawage.net

                 - and –

         Bruce Godfrey, Esq.
         JEZIC & MOYSE, LLC
         2730 University Blvd. W #604
         Silver Spring, MD 20902
         Telephone: (240) 292-7200
         E-mail: godfrey@jezicfirm.com

KROGER CO: Wins Bid to Stay Discovery in Kirkbride Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Preston Deavers of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants
the Defendant's Motion to Stay Discovery in the lawsuit entitled
JUDY KIRKBRIDE, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE KROGER CO., Defendant,
Case No. 2:21-cv-22 (S.D. Ohio).

The Plaintiff, Judy Kirkbride, individually and on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, filed a Class Action
Complaint on Jan. 5, 2021, against Defendant Kroger, arising from
its alleged fraudulent and deceptive pricing scheme to overcharge
customers with third-party insurance providers ("TPPs") on
purchases of generic prescription medication.

According to the allegations, in its submissions to TPPs, Kroger
inflated the usual and customary (U&C) prices at which it sold
generic prescription drugs. Kroger should have listed its U&C
prices at the lowest amounts at which it sold medications,
including through its Rx Savings Club (RxSC), but it instead used
highly inflated prices. Because TPPs use U&C prices to set
copayment amounts, the result of Kroger's inflated U&C prices was
that the Plaintiff and other consumers paid far more for generic
drugs than they should have.

On April 9, 2021, Kroger filed a motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim. The motion was accompanied by a motion to stay
discovery. The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on April 29,
2021, naming additional Plaintiffs, including Patricia Berger,
Lester Hatfield, Melody Mackert, and Beeta Lewis and including
similar allegations. Kroger again moved to dismiss and its motion
to stay discovery remained pending.

Kroger contends that a stay is necessary for several reasons.
Kroger explains, among other things, that responding to the
Plaintiff's requests for production would be very burdensome
because the requested class, if certified, would include millions
of people and the requests will require Kroger to pull and produce
over 380 million lines of pharmacy data. Kroger asserts that this
burden is exacerbated by the fact that it currently is on the front
lines of responding to the COVID-19 pandemic and administering
approximately one million vaccines a week. Kroger represents that
in approximately three months, it will have significantly more
resources to devote to responding to the Plaintiffs' requests.

In response, the Plaintiff argues that Kroger's motion to dismiss
is "garden-variety" and, therefore, insufficient to warrant a stay.
Further, the Plaintiff characterizes her discovery requests as
"focused and narrowly tailored" and notes that she has not served
interrogatories or requests for admission.

The Court concludes that Kroger has demonstrated that a stay of
discovery is justified here. First, contrary to the Plaintiff's
characterization, the basis for Kroger's motion is not solely the
pendency of potentially dispositive motions. Rather, consistent
with the standard set forth in this Opinion and Order, the focus of
Kroger's motion is the burden it will face if required to respond
to the Plaintiff's discovery requests and the lack of prejudice
faced by the Plaintiff if discovery is stayed. Significantly,
Kroger has not simply claimed burden but has provided evidentiary
support.

Through the declaration of Jessica Paul, its Chief Financial
Officer, Kroger has demonstrated the extent of its burden arising
from both the breadth of the requests themselves and the backdrop
of societal circumstances under which it currently is being asked
to respond, Judge Deavers holds. Kroger also has explained that,
while the burden is particularly acute right now, it will remain
significant to the extent it will be required to coordinate
contract matters with approximately 80 third parties. Additionally,
despite the Plaintiff's suggestion to the contrary, Ms. Paul's
detailed averments underscore that the Plaintiff's offer to set
aside the transactional data request will not sufficiently minimize
this burden.

As Kroger points out, the Plaintiff has failed to address the
substance of its burden argument in any meaningful way. At most,
Judge Deavers notes, the Plaintiff has dismissed Kroger's
documented concerns out of hand, offering nothing more than
unsupported and wholly conclusory assertions of ease.

Moreover, Judge Deavers finds that in the cursory treatment of
Kroger's demonstrated burden, the Plaintiff has not pointed to any
hardship she will suffer as a result of a short stay of discovery.
Beyond this circumstance, this case remains in the very early
litigation stage and a stay likely will reduce the burden on the
Court. Additionally, the motions to dismiss and to strike are fully
briefed and there should not be a lengthy delay in their
resolution. Accordingly, relying on Kroger's uncontroverted
evidence and weighing the additional factors, the Court concludes
that a stay of all discovery pending resolution of the motions to
dismiss and to strike the class allegations is warranted.

For these reasons, the Court finds that Defendant Kroger has
carried its burden to show that a stay of discovery is warranted.
The Court, therefore, exercises its discretion to conclude that a
temporary stay is appropriate in this case.

Accordingly, the Motion to Stay Discovery is granted. All discovery
in this case is stayed pending resolution of the motions to dismiss
and to strike the class allegations. The Defendant's request for
oral argument is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated June 28,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y89xpfay from
Leagle.com.


LG ELECTRONICS: Faces Simner Suit Over Defective Dishwashers
------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL SIMNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LG ELECTRONICS USA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:21-cv-13322 (D.N.J., July 7, 2021) is a class action arises
from the Defendant's alleged sale of dishwashers equipped with
defective LED control panels.

According to the complaint, LG designed the dishwashers with
control panels that are "easy to see and use. . ." However, due to
an identical, latent, and pervasive defect in materials and
workmanship present in each and every control panel, the
dishwashers fail to perform through the end of their expected
useful life and are unsuited for their ordinary and intended
purpose (the "Control Panel Defect" or "Defect").

Due to the Control Panel Defect, moisture penetrates into the
control panels. When the Defect first manifests, the control
panel's buttons and LED display will appear to simply malfunction
and dishwashers may stop mid-cycle. Eventually, however, the Defect
renders the control panels unresponsive and the dishwashers
inoperable, says the suit.

LG Electronics of USA manufactures and distributes consumer
electronic products. The Company offers light emission diode
televisions, mobile phones, monitors, refrigerators, washing
machines, dryers, air conditioners, and projectors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
          & SPRENGEL LLP
          205 N. Monroe St.
          Media, PA 19063
          Telephone: (215) 864-2800
          Facsimile: (215) 964-2808
          E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

               -and-

          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          Kaitlin Naughton, Esq.
          Olivia Lawless, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER
          & SPRENGEL LLP
          150 S. Wacker Drive 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          Facsimile: (312) 782-7785
          E-mail: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com
                  knaughton@caffertyclobes.com
                  olawless@caffertyclobes.com

LIMETREE BAY: Judge Challenges Attorneys With Deadlines in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Ellis at stthomassource.com reports that there was little
movement towards getting cisterns cleaned and filled with fresh
water during the first day of the class action suit against
Limetree Bay for spraying oil from the refinery over several
mid-island neighborhoods and farmlands earlier this year.

According to the plaintiffs' attorneys - Lee Rohn, Russell Pate and
Marina Leonard - they represent around 2,200 residents affected by
the accidental oil releases. Some have had their cisterns cleaned
and refilled but many others have been using bottled water provided
by Limetree to cook and bathe in.

"Many got no money and have no money, but won't give up their
personal rights," Rohn said. "Hundreds of homes have never been
cleaned."

The plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit include Beecher Cotton,
Pamela Colon, Sirdina Isaac-Joseph, Sylvia Browne, Alvina
Jean-Marie Ilarraza, and Esther Clifford, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated.

There was no discussion of cleaning the neighborhoods affected by
oil in District Judge Wilma Lewis' courtroom because there were
other issues to be decided first.

In fact, the proceeding was called to hear oral arguments from both
sides about a temporary restraining order, a preliminary mandatory
injunction, limiting communication by Limetree with members of the
class action suit and about voiding the releases signed by
residents in order to have their property mitigated.

One of the issues the court must deal with is the bankruptcy filed
by Limetree Refinery. Because bankruptcy candidates are granted an
"auto stay" and are not to be involved in lawsuits, the refinery
should be eliminated from the injunction until after the bankruptcy
is settled. Since the class action suit was filed against Limetree
Bay Refining LLC, Limetree Bay Ventures LLC and Limetree Bay
Terminals LLC, the plaintiffs need to decide how much liability, if
any, should be accorded to the other two entities.

Limetree defense lawyer, Carl Beckstedt III, said if there are
claims against the bankrupt entity and those not involved in
bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court should work it out during those
proceedings. He added that during the bankruptcy filing in Texas,
Limetree Refinery discussed a budget for an EPA suit to "include
funds for the remaining remediation in the community."

Rohn said she believes the three companies are essentially the same
because there is one chief executive officer, insurance coverage by
one company and they didn't distinguish between entities when
discussing the May 12 oil discharge although it was the refinery
responsible for the action.

The other defendants are ArcLight Capital Partners LLC, Freeport
Commodities LLC, EIG Global Energy Partners LLC, BP Products North
America and John Doe.

Representatives from BP Products and ArcLight Capital argued
successfully that they were not responsible for the spill nor the
cleanup. ArcLight said it was not liable for Limetree actions
because they sold their equity in the company in April 2021 - one
month before the major incident. BP said it had nothing to do with
the releases nor was it consulted. Other potential liabilities of
the companies will be determined as the case proceeds.

The plaintiffs' attorneys also need to discover which if any of the
Limetree owners are residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands and which
are not. That will determine whether the case should be heard in
U.S. District Court or, if local, V.I. Superior Court will handle
it.

Regarding a mandatory injunction, Lewis told the plaintiffs they
must show how the episode created irrefutable harm and said that a
promise to clean and fill cisterns at a later date does not qualify
as irrefutable harm. People can seek additional damages, she
added.

"There is no evidence to support irrefutable harm," so far, Lewis
said. "If you can recover monetary damages later on you do not have
irrefutable harm."

Beckstedt and Rohn agreed it was in the public interest to clean up
the oil.

After a lengthy discussion about releases signed by residents,
Lewis voided the current release form and charged both sides with
creating a new one that can be used in the future. The former
release used by Limetree was found to have inadequate and confusing
information about the class action suit and terminology regarding
bodily injury and property damage.

In the end, Lewis told the attorneys to get together and clarify
issues for a temporary restraining order and additional evidence
for a mandatory injunction.

The judge also ordered both sides to schedule and prepare a "stay"
brief involving the three Limetree Bay entities. She said she will
publish dates for the next actions.

There were several attorneys in the gallery who said they represent
a number of residents in other class actions suits. One of them
said there were experts taking soil samples in the affected area.
The total number of U.S. Virgin Islanders seeking some kind of
class action relief is unknown. [GN]

LONESTAR SPORTS: Faces Escalante Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case, EDWIN GERMAN ESCALANTE, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff v. LONESTAR SPORTS BAR AND
GRILL, INC. and TRACY A. BLAIS and ANTHONY GENTILE, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-03900 (E.D.N.Y., July 12, 2021) arises
from the Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a cook continuously
from June 2011 through October 2020 at the Defendants' restaurant
known as "Lonestar Bar and Grill" in Kings County, NY. He was
transferred to the Defendants' new restaurant d/b/a Lonestar BBQ
Express and worked for the Defendants' restaurant without
interruption until June 17, 2021.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked a total of 70
hours per week, often worked in excess of 10 hours per shift,
throughout his employment with the Defendants. However, the
Plaintiff was often paid less than his promised weekly salary. The
Defendants allegedly failed to compensate him for all hours he has
worked, including overtime at the rate of one and one-half times
his regular rate of pay for all hours he worked in excess of 40 per
workweek. In addition, the Defendants did not keep track of his
star and end times on a daily basis, and did not provide him with a
wage statement, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint as a collective action seeking
to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime premiums, and spread of
hours premium, as well as statutory damages and liquidated damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, litigation costs and expenses
together with reasonable attorneys' fees, and other relief as the
Court determines to be just and proper.

Lonestar Sports Bar and Grill, Inc. operates restaurants co-owned
by Tracy A. Blais and Anthony Gentile. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          10 Grand Central
          155 East 44th Street - 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Tel: (212) 209-3933
          Fax: (212) 209-7102
          E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com

MAINSTAGE MANAGEMENT: Layton Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
BROOKE LAYTON v. MAINSTAGE MANAGEMENT, INC., NICK'S MAINSTAGE, INC.
-- DALLAS PT'S D/B/A PT MEN'S CLUB and NICK MEHMETI, Case No.
3:21-cv-01636-N (N.D. Tex., July 14, 2021) alleges causes of action
against the Defendants for damages resulting from the Defendants
evading the mandatory minimum wage and overtime provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and illegally absconding with tips of the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated class members.

These causes of action arise from Defendants' willful actions while
Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from April 2018 through
December 2019. Throughout her employment with the Defendants,
Plaintiff has been allegedly denied minimum wage payments and
denied overtime as part of the Defendants scheme to classify
Plaintiff and other dancers/entertainers as "independent
contractors."

The Plaintiff worked at Defendants' principal place of business
located at 10601 Plano Road, Dallas, Texas.

The Defendants own and operate a strip Club named PT MEN'S CLUB.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          Leigh Montgomery Texas
          1105 Milford Street
          Houston, TX 77066
          Telephone: (713) 554-2377
          Facsimile: (888) 276-3455
          E-mail: jarrett@ellzeylaw.com
                  leigh@ellzeylaw.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Alexander, Esq.
          MARK A. ALEXANDER, P.C.
          5080 Spectrum, Suite 850E
          Addison, TX 75001
          Telephone: (972) 544-6968
          Facsimile: (972) 421-1500
          E-mail: mark@markalexanderlaw.com

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMER
DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 8:19-md-02879-PWG (D.
Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the
proposed classes under Rule 23(b)(3), Rule 23(b)(2), and Rule
23(c)(4) and appointing their co-lead class counsel.

The Plaintiffs contend that the Negligence Classes, Consumer
Protection Classes, and Breach of Contract Classes should be
certified under Rule 23(b)(3) for statutory, nominal, inherent
value, and benefit of the bargain damages. For each, common issues
predominate over individual issues and a class action is superior
to any other method of adjudicating the issues. Moreover, the
identity of each Classes’ members is ascertainable and no
manageability hurdles prevent the trial of these Classes.

The Negligence Classes, Consumer Protection Classes, and Breach of
Contract Classes should be certified under Rule 23(c)(4) with
respect to liability issues and any individualized damages such as
identify theft or out of pocket losses can be resolved through
individual mini-trials or other management tools.

That Andrew N. Friedman, Amy Keller, and James Pizzirusso should be
appointed as Co-Lead Class Counsel; that Veronica Nannis and James
Ulwick should be appointed Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel; and that
MaryBeth Gibson, Megan Jones, Jason Lichtman, Gary Lynch, Timothy
Maloney, Daniel Robinson, Norman Siegel, and Ariana Tadler should
be named to the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, the Plaintiffs
add.

Marriott International, Inc. is an American multinational company
that operates, franchises, and licenses lodging including hotel,
residential, and timeshare properties. It is headquartered in
Bethesda, Maryland.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify classes dated July 13,
2021 is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eHB9hM
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          DI CELLO LEVITT GUTZLER LLC
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: akeller@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 500
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202)408-4600
          E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          888 16th Street NW, Suite 300
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com

MARY KAY: Faces BIPA Class Action in Illinois State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Alberstein, Esq., Anthony Lupo, Esq., and Eva Pulliam, Esq.,
of Arent Fox, in an article for JDSupra, report that BIPA, the
frequently used basis for class action lawsuits in connection with
facial recognition, fingerprint, and other technologies is once
again serving as the basis for two recently filed suits.

What to Know
Class action lawsuits have been filed in Illinois state court,
alleging that cosmetics company, Mary Kay, and beauty retailer,
Ulta, violated Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act
("BIPA").

The complaints allege that the companies collected consumers'
facial geometry without obtaining informed consent.

The Alleged Biometric Data Collection
BIPA, the frequently used basis for class action lawsuits in
connection with facial recognition, fingerprint, and other
technologies is once again serving as the basis for two recently
filed suits. The complaints claim that Mary Kay and Ulta, two
beauty brands, scanned and collected consumers' geometric facial
data without consent through the companies' respective online
augmented reality tools. Specifically, Mary Kay's "MirrorMe"
program and Ulta's "Foundation Shade Matcher," "GLAMlab(R)," and
"Skin Analysis" tools offer users a way to virtually to "try on"
different cosmetics and beauty products prior to purchase. The
tools allegedly function by scanning images and videos of
consumers' faces and virtually applying particular products to the
scanned images and videos. While both websites host a privacy
policy, BIPA requires very specific notice and consent procedures
prior to collection. The two lawsuits allege that such consent was
not obtained.

The Class Actions
Namely, for informed consent, BIPA requires business that collect
biometric information (as the term is defined under the law) to
provide written notice that (i) biometric data is being collected
and stored; (ii) the specific purposes for the collection, storage,
and use of the information; and (iii) the length of time for which
the biometric data is being stored. A consumer must then provide
written consent for the collection, storage, and use of the
individual's biometric data. The complaints allege that the
companies did not satisfy any of the BIPA consent requirements.
Rather, the companies allegedly failed to inform consumers about
the particular purposes for which their data is collected, nor the
length of time this data is stored, and failed to promulgate a
publicly available policy regarding their biometric data collection
protocols. The complainants seek class action certification,
statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

Takeaways
As we have previously reported, companies considering the use of
biometric technologies must be prepared for a continued rise of
class actions in this space. Biometric data is particularly
sensitive and has accordingly attracted the attention of class
action litigants and regulators alike. As new privacy laws
incorporate provisions protecting biometric privacy, the claims by
consumers and regulators are likely to increase. This case serves
as a good reminder to review collection practices tied to
collection of biometric data for compliance with BIPA and similar
standards. [GN]

MATCH GROUP: Seeks Dismissal of Shareholder Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Tabacco, writing for Law/Street, reports that the Match
Group's latest filing asserts that the Northern District of Texas
court overseeing the shareholder suit correctly granted its motion
to dismiss before, and should do so again. The brief, filed over
the weekend on behalf of defendants Match Group Inc., which
operates dating and matchmaking websites like Match.com and Tinder,
its CEO Amanda Ginsberg, and CFO Gary Swidler, claims that the
plaintiff's "paltry additions" once again fall short of meeting the
federal securities law's pleading requirements.

The plaintiff first filed suit against the Match Group in 2019, and
filed an amended complaint following dismissal without prejudice
earlier this year. The operative complaint contends that scammer
"bot" accounts on a number of Match Group websites whose operators
"sought to extract money or things of value from Match's legitimate
customers," accounted for 15-20% of one of the Match Group's
reported revenue streams.

Among other things, the complaint contends that the defendants
failed to disclose the fraud and forecast its earnings accurately.
In addition, it alleges that the defendants hid information about
sex offender users on its sites.

In turn, the shareholder argues, the defendants made materially
false and misleading statements that incorrectly "depicted Match as
a strong company with solid website / app user base, high customer
satisfaction, and effective safety screening." The complaint points
to the testimony of several confidential witnesses who were
formerly employed by the Match Group as evidence.

In its reply brief, Match asserts that the allegations do not
"demonstrate the falsity of any disclosure or establish that any
individual Defendant personally knew of facts contradicting their
statements, which must be pled with particularity to establish
scienter." The filing points to purported flaws in the complaint,
including failure to identify details about the fake accounts.

Specifically, the Match Group alleges that the revised complaint
does not include details such as "how long these purported 'bad
actor' accounts stayed active, how much revenue (if any) was
received from these accounts, what portion of this purported
'15-20%' figure actually comprised 'fake' or 'scammer' accounts, or
what specific knowledge Ginsberg or Swidler had regarding specific
amounts of revenue obtained from purportedly fake accounts."

The plaintiff's two new exhibits containing allegedly actionable
statements "simply confirm Plaintiffs' inability to plead a
securities fraud claim," the brief said. Instead of weighing in
favor of the plaintiff's fraud allegations, they indicate the Match
Group's desire to disclose information about fake and dangerous
users to the investing public.

The plaintiff is represented by Pomerantz LLP, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, and Kendall Law Group PLLC. The Match Group and
individual defendants are represented by Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP. [GN]

MAXWELL HOUSE: US Judge Discusses Settlement in Mislabeling Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
dailycoffeenews.com reports that a U.S. District Court Judge
couldn't resist an attempted mic drop in response to a class action
lawsuit related to Maxwell House brand coffee labeling.

In an order granting final approval of a $16 million settlement in
a class action case initiated last October, U.S. Southern District
of Florida Judge Rodolfo A. Ruiz II declared the settlement
agreement "good to the last drop" -- a reference to the Maxwell
House brand tagline that dates back to at least 2015.

"After careful consideration of the record and Final Approval
Motions, the Court finds the instant settlement -- which resolves
claims regarding the purported mislabeling of ground coffee --  is
good to the last drop," Ruiz wrote.

The order cites a YouTube video that describes a 1976 Maxwell House
commercial. As of this writing, the video was no longer available
on YouTube. Ruiz then spent another 45 legal pages outlining how
and why lawyers are to be paid, and other matters of the court.

Maxwell House owner Kraft Heinz was the defendant named in the
case, which was filed by lawyers for Florida woman Kimberly Ferron
on behalf of anyone who purchased specific Maxwell House or Yuban
brand coffee products between Aug. 27, 2015, and Jan. 18, 2021.

The suit alleged that the packages misled consumers about how many
individual servings of coffee the products could produce, based on
brewing instructions printed on the product labels. Specifically,
the labels indicated that 1 tablespoon of Maxwell House coffee with
6 ounces of water could make 1 serving of coffee, and that half a
cup, or 8 tablespoons, would make 10 servings.

Ferron, who purchased Maxwell House coffee at a Broward County
Walmart was deprived, misled and deceived, according to the
lawsuit, by finding that the coffee product in question could not
brew the full 180 to 210 servings, as listed on the back of the
plastic containers.

The case resulted in a $16 million settlement agreement last
December. People who purchased the coffee products within the
timeframe willing to go through the class member registration
process and waive future legal rights were eligible to receive 80
cents per unit purchased, with reimbursement of up to $4.80 per
household without proofs of purchase, or $25 per household with
proof of purchase. The deadline to apply has passed.

According to Judge Ruiz's knee-slapping order, lawyers for the
plaintiffs and the class are now entitled to $3.9 million in
compensation. [GN]

METRO PORTFOLIOS: Response Time to Class Cert Denial Bid Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Santos v. Metro
Portfolios, Inc., et al., Case No. 7:20-cv-06706-NSR-AEK
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nelson S. Roman entered an order
extending the Plaintiffs' time to respond to Defendants Metro
Portfolios, Inc., Selip & Stylianou, LLP and David Cohen, Esq.'s
recent pre-motion letter regarding an anticipated motion to deny
class certification.

Metro Portfolios is a debt buyer.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3iz8Djk at no extra charge.[CC]

MHR FUND: Faces Butchko Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
------------------------------------------------------------
DIANA BUTCHKO v. MARK H. RACHESKY, M.D., MICHAEL B. TARGOFF, JOHN
D. HARKEY, JR., ARTHUR L. SIMON, JOHN P. STENBIT, JANET T. YEUNG,
MHR FUND MANAGEMENT LLC, MHR HOLDINGS LLC, and LORAL SPACE &
COMMUNICATIONS INC., Case No. 2021-0597 (Del. Ch., July 13, 2021)
is an action arises from a merger in connection with which a
controlling stockholder breached its fiduciary duties by attempting
to circumvent a post-trial judgement of this Court and a board of
directors failed to subject the transaction to the statutorily
required vote under Section 203.

Loral is a satellite communications company. Loral holds a 62.7%
economic interest and a 32.6% voting interest in Telesat Canada
("Telesat"), a global satellite operator. Loral currently has two
classes of stock: voting common stock ("Voting Common Stock") and
non-voting common stock ("Non-Voting Common Stock").

MHR has continuously controlled Loral since at least 2005. In 2008,
MHR sought to further solidify its control over Loral through a
$300 million convertible preferred stock investment (the "Preferred
Stock Transaction"). Following stockholder litigation challenging
the Preferred Stock Transaction, then-Vice Chancellor Leo E.
Strine, Jr. held that MHR had breached its fiduciary duties 2as
Loral's controlling stockholder and ruled that, among other things,
MHR's preferred stock would be converted into Loral Non-Voting
Common Stock.

For the better part of the last five years, MHR has sought to
combine Loral and Telesat. When the process dragged on for years
and MHR faced resistance from the one-member Loral special
committee (the "Special Committee" or "Committee"), Rachesky
threatened to circumvent the Committee. Ultimately, the Special
Committee caved and, on November 23, 2020, the Loral Board approved
a combination of Loral and Telesat (the "Proposed Transaction"),
through which MHR will exchange the approximately 9.5 million
shares of Loral Non-Voting Common Stock (i.e., the same shares that
the Court stripped of voting rights in the Post-Trial Opinion) for
voting shares of the combined company.

Despite the significant transfer of voting power from Loral's
public stockholders to MHR in connection with the Proposed
Transaction, MHR is not compensating Loral's public stockholders
for this valuable benefit, says the suit.

Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to (a) compel Defendants to
subject the Proposed Transaction to the statutorily required vote
under Section 203; and (b) recover for Defendants' breaches of
fiduciary duty.

The Plaintiff is a stockholder of Loral and has owned shares of
Loral Voting Common Stock at all times relevant to the Action.

Defendant Loral is a satellite communications company. Defendant
Rachesky is the Chairman of the Loral Board, a position he assumed
in February 2006. Rachesky controls Loral through, among other
things, his and his investment firm's ownership of approximately
39.9% of Loral's Voting Common Stock. Rachesky is also the
co-founder and President of MHR Fund Management, the investment
manager of various private investment firms and the entity through
which Rachesky owns the majority of his Loral stock and exerts his
control over Loral. Rachesky is the managing member of MHR Fund
Management and of the general partners of each of the funds managed
by MHR and, as such, is the beneficial owner of all the shares held
by the MHR entities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy S. Friedman, Esq.
          David F.E. Tejtel, Esq.
          FRIEDMAN OSTER & TEJTEL PLLC
          493 Bedford Center Road, Suite 2D
          Bedford Hills, NY 10507
          Telephone: (888) 529-1108

               - and -

          D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
          KASKELA LAW LLC
          18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100
          Newtown Square, PA 19073
          Telephone: (484) 258-1585

               - and -

          Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
          Craig J. Springer, Esq.
          David M. Sborz, Esq.
          Christopher P. Quinn, Esq.
          ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
          4001 Kennett Pike, Suite 250
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 504-4957

MUTUAL SECURITIES: Gilotti's Bid to Intervene in Milliner Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denied Vincent F. Gilotti's motion
to intervene in the lawsuit titled CHARLOTTE B. MILLINER, et al.,
Plaintiffs v. MUTUAL SECURITIES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
15-cv-03354-DMR (N.D. Cal.).

Gilotti moves pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to intervene for the purpose of unsealing a settlement
agreement that was attached to Defendant Mutual Securities, Inc.'s
("MSI") motion to enforce the agreement. MSI opposes the motion.
Judge Ryu notes that this motion is suitable for resolution without
a hearing.

Background

Plaintiffs Charlotte B. Milliner and Joann Brem filed this putative
class action against MSI in 2015 alleging claims stemming from
MSI's brokerage agreement with the Plaintiffs. On June 1, 2018,
following a settlement conference before Judge Ryu, the parties
resolved the Plaintiffs' claims and executed a written settlement
agreement that contained a confidentiality provision. The parties
subsequently consented to have this Court conduct all further
proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c). The case was
dismissed on Sept. 11, 2018.

In April 2019, MSI filed a motion to enforce the settlement
agreement and the stipulated protective order entered in this case,
arguing that the Plaintiffs and their counsel, David
Sturgeon-Garcia, Esq., breached them, including the settlement
agreement's confidentiality provision. In relevant part, MSI
presented evidence that in February 2019, Sturgeon-Garcia filed a
statement of claim with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority
("FINRA") against MSI and five individuals on behalf of a different
client, Proposed Intervenor Gilotti ("Gilotti claim").

In his claim, Gilotti noted that Milliner and Brem settled their
individual claims against MSI and dismissed the class claims with
prejudice, and in support of the statement that "any and all claims
held by putative class members, like Mr. Gilotti, were preserved,"
Gilotti cited the settlement agreement and attached a complete copy
as an exhibit to his claim (Docket No. 173-4 (Fredricks Decl. April
5, 2019) (Gilotti claim)). MSI also argued that Milliner was in
breach of the settlement agreement because she had not requested a
dismissal of her FINRA claims against MSI.

In connection with its motion to enforce, MSI moved to seal the
settlement agreement in its entirety, as well as the portions of
its motion quoting the settlement agreement. The Plaintiffs opposed
the motion.

On July 8, 2019, the Court ruled on portions of the motion and held
in abeyance the portion of the motion regarding Sturgeon-Garcia's
use of the settlement agreement pending a decision by the
California Supreme Court (Milliner v. Mut. Sec., Inc. ("Milliner
I"), No. 15-CV-03354-DMR, 2019 WL 2929831 (N.D. Cal. July 8,
2019)). The Court also ordered Sturgeon-Garcia to withdraw the
settlement agreement from Gilotti's FINRA claim and granted MSI's
motion to seal, finding that given the particular circumstances of
this case, where MSI argues that Plaintiffs and their counsel have
breached the settlement agreement's confidentiality provision, good
cause exists to permit filing the actual agreement and certain
references to it under seal.

On July 23, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
July 8, 2019 order to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit. Gilotti filed the instant motion the following day,
July 24, 2019. On Oct. 9, 2019, the Court issued an order on
several motions, including Gilotti's motion to intervene (Milliner
v. Mut. Sec., Inc. ("Milliner II"), No. 15-CV-03354-DMR, 2019 WL
5067012, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2019)). In relevant part, the
Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter (as
well as two other pending motions) because the Plaintiffs' filing
of a notice of appeal of the July 8, 2019 Order had divested the
district court of its control over those aspects of the case
involved in the appeal. Therefore, it denied the motion to
intervene without prejudice, along with the other pending motions.

The Ninth Circuit ultimately granted MSI's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' appeal for lack of jurisdiction (Milliner as Tr. of
Charlotte B. Milliner Tr. Dated Jan. 30, 1997 v. Mut. Sec., Inc.,
No. 19-16463, 2020 WL 4252641 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2020)).
Accordingly, Gilotti's motion to intervene is now appropriate for
decision.

Request for Judicial Notice

In connection with his motion, Gilotti asks the court to take
judicial notice of two FINRA "BrokerCheck Reports" for Thomas
Herbert Bock and Mary C. Evans. According to Gilotti, BrokerCheck
is a free tool from FINRA to research the background and experience
of financial brokers, advisers and firms (citing
https://brokercheck.finra.org). FINRA's website states,
"BrokerCheck gives you a snapshot of a broker's employment history,
regulatory actions, and investment-related licensing information,
arbitrations and complaints." https://brokercheck.finra.org (last
visited Jun. 15, 2021).

Mr. Gilotti asks the Court to take judicial notice of the two
BrokerCheck Reports pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. Under
Rule 201, a court may take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact
if it is not subject to reasonable dispute, citing Khoja v.
Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2018)
(quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)).

Judge Ryu notes that it appears that Gilotti asks the court to take
judicial notice of the fact that MSI "and/or its agents" reported
to FINRA the case number for the Plaintiffs' complaint against MSI,
the fact of its settlement, and the amount of the settlement. MSI
did not object or respond to the RJN. However, Gilotti attached the
BrokerCheck Reports directly to the RJN. Neither document was
authenticated by anyone with personal knowledge or described in a
declaration. Additionally, the document pertaining to Evans appears
to be altered with redactions on multiple pages, with no
explanation.

Since there is no evidence to substantiate what the documents are,
Gilotti's request for judicial notice is denied, Judge Ryu rules.

Discussion

In this case, Gilotti seeks to intervene solely for the purpose of
unsealing the parties' settlement agreement. Essentially, the court
must determine whether Gilotti satisfies the applicable
requirements of Rule 24(b) and whether the settlement agreement
should remain under seal.

Neither side addresses the timeliness of Gilotti's motion in their
briefing. They also do not discuss the Rule 24(b)(3) factors the
Court must consider in deciding the motion. Instead, the bulk of
Gilotti's motion focuses on whether the settlement agreement should
remain sealed, Judge Ryu finds.

For its part, MSI primarily argues that the motion should be denied
because Gilotti cannot satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule
24(b). It also argues that Gilotti's motion is an improper motion
for reconsideration of the court's July 8, 2019 sealing order that
does not comply with the requirements of Local Rule 7-9. Judge Ryu
holds that neither argument has merit.

As noted, since Gilotti is moving to intervene to unseal a court
record and not to litigate a claim on the merits, he need not
demonstrate a common question of law or fact, Judge Ryu states. She
adds that Rule 7-9 does not apply, since Gilotti is not a party to
this action and is independently moving for relief.

The case was dismissed in September 2018. Gilotti filed his motion
on July 24, 2019, less than three weeks after the July 8, 2019
order sealing the settlement agreement, and MSI offers no argument
as to how it is prejudiced by this motion. Therefore, the Court
finds that Gilotti's motion is timely.

Judge Ryu explains that the Rule 24(b)(3) factors also do not weigh
against permissive intervention. Given the stage of the proceedings
and the fact that the case has long been dismissed, Gilotti's
intervention for the purpose of unsealing the settlement agreement
will not "unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication" of
Plaintiffs' and MSI's rights. Accordingly, the Court will consider
the merits of Gilotti's request to unseal the settlement
agreement.

In this case, the sealed settlement agreement was attached to a
motion to enforce a settlement agreement. In that motion, MSI
argued that the Plaintiffs and their counsel breached the
settlement agreement's confidentiality provision and that Milliner
failed to request dismissal of her FINRA claims against MSI in
accordance with the agreement. Gilotti does not explain how the
motion was "more than tangentially related to the merits" of the
case, and the Court finds that the issues presented in MSI's motion
have nothing to do with the merits of the litigation. Accordingly,
consistent with its July 8, 2019 order on sealing, the Court finds
that the good cause standard for sealing applies to the settlement
agreement.

The counsel explains that MSI considered the confidentiality
provision in the settlement agreement "a material term," and that
without such a provision, MSI very likely would not have agreed to
settle the case. He adds, among other things, that the
confidentiality provision was important "to guard against" an
argument that MSI effectively admitted liability in this case by
settling that could be used against it in future litigation. He
concludes that this case involves private parties and
subject-matter that does not generally affect the public interest,
and that the interest in fostering settlement through the use of
confidentiality provisions outweighs any interest in the public
having access to the settlement agreement.

The Court finds that good cause supports sealing the settlement
agreement. The parties' inclusion of the confidentiality provision
in the settlement agreement itself supports the conclusion that
they intended to keep the settlement agreement confidential and out
of the public record.

The Court also finds that Gilotti's and the public's interest in
this matter do not outweigh MSI's interests in keeping the
settlement agreement under seal. This is consistent with the
court's July 8, 2019 order directing Sturgeon-Garcia to withdraw
the settlement agreement from Gilotti's FINRA claim; as the Court
found, nothing in the record suggests that Gilotti will be
prejudiced in any way by its withdrawal, or that the settlement
agreement in this case is material or even relevant to Gilotti's
claim. Gilotti offers no argument or explanation regarding his or
the public's interest in a settlement agreement between private
parties.

In sum, the Court concludes that good cause supports maintaining
the settlement agreement under seal. Gilotti's motion to intervene
to unseal the settlement agreement is, therefore, denied.

Conclusion

For these reasons, Gilotti's motion to intervene to unseal the
settlement agreement is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 28, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/7ffdedhj from Leagle.com.


MUTUAL SECURITIES: Loses Bid to Enforce Agreement in Milliner Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CHARLOTTE B. MILLINER, et al., Plaintiffs v.
MUTUAL SECURITIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-03354-DMR (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California denied the Defendant's motion
to enforce the parties' settlement agreement that was previously
held in abeyance.

Defendant Mutual Securities, Inc. ("MSI") filed a motion to enforce
the settlement agreement and the stipulated protective order
entered in this case, arguing in part that the Plaintiffs' counsel,
David Sturgeon-Garcia, Esq., violated the settlement agreement by
submitting a copy of the agreement to the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority in connection with a third party's claim to
that agency.

On July 8, 2019, the Court ruled on portions of the motion and held
in abeyance the portion of the motion regarding Sturgeon-Garcia's
use of the settlement agreement pending a decision by the
California Supreme Court. The portion of the motion regarding the
settlement agreement previously held in abeyance is now ripe for
decision. This matter is suitable for resolution without a
hearing.

Background

Plaintiffs Charlotte B. Milliner and Joann Brem filed this putative
class action against MSI in 2015 alleging claims stemming from
MSI's brokerage agreement with the Plaintiffs. On June 1, 2018,
following a settlement conference before Judge Ryu, the parties
resolved the Plaintiffs' claims and executed a written settlement
agreement that contained a confidentiality provision. The parties
subsequently consented to have this Court conduct all further
proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c). The case was
dismissed on Sept. 11, 2018.

In April 2019, MSI filed a motion to enforce the settlement
agreement and the stipulated protective order entered in this case,
arguing that the Plaintiffs and Sturgeon-Garcia breached them,
including the settlement agreement's confidentiality provision.
Specifically, MSI presented evidence that in February 2019,
Sturgeon-Garcia filed a statement of claim with the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") against MSI and five
individuals on behalf of a different client, Vincent F. Gilotti
(the "Gilotti claim") [Docket No. 173-4 (Fredricks Decl. April 5,
2019) (Gilotti claim).].

Gilotti's FINRA claim included as attachments deposition
transcripts used in this litigation and a document used in this
litigation and marked as confidential. Additionally, Gilotti's
claim noted that Milliner and Brem settled their individual claims
against MSI and dismissed the class claims with prejudice, and in
support of the statement that "any and all claims held by putative
class members, like Mr. Gilotti, were preserved," Gilotti cited the
settlement agreement and attached a complete copy as an exhibit to
his claim.

In relevant part, MSI argued that Sturgeon-Garcia's use of
materials from discovery in this litigation with the Gilotti claim
violated the protective order and the settlement agreement's
confidentiality provision. It also argued that the Plaintiffs
and/or Sturgeon-Garcia violated the settlement agreement's
confidentiality provision by attaching a copy of the settlement
agreement to the Gilotti claim.

The Court issued an order on the motion on July 8, 2019 (Milliner
v. Mut. Sec., Inc., No. 15-CV-03354-DMR, 2019 WL 2929831 (N.D. Cal.
July 8, 2019)). In relevant part, it granted in part and denied in
part the motion with respect to the protective order and found that
Sturgeon-Garcia's submission of materials from this litigation with
the Gilotti claim did not violate the settlement agreement's
confidentiality provision.

As to MSI's argument that the Plaintiffs and/or Sturgeon-Garcia
violated the settlement agreement's confidentiality provision by
attaching a copy of the settlement agreement to the Gilotti claim,
the Court held the matter in abeyance pending a ruling by the
California Supreme Court on a key issue, as follows: the Plaintiffs
argued that they had not "disclosed anything to anyone," and that
as a matter of law, Sturgeon-Garcia "is not bound by the settlement
agreement's confidentiality provision because he was not a party to
the agreement," citing Monster Energy Company v. Schechter
("Monster Energy I"), 26 Cal. App. 5th 54 (2018), review granted,
239 Cal.Rptr.3d 662 (2018), rev'd, 7 Cal. 5th 781 (2019).

The Court noted that the California Supreme Court had granted
review of Monster Energy I and found that "the question of whether
Sturgeon-Garcia is bound by the confidentiality provision in the
settlement agreement remains unsettled." Accordingly, the Court
ordered the following: [P]ending the California Supreme Court's
decision in Monster Energy, Sturgeon-Garcia will comply with the
confidentiality provision of the settlement agreement unless and
until relieved of this obligation by this court. . . .

The Plaintiffs then moved to stay the July 8, 2019 order in light
of an anticipated motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration. The Court granted the request in part and stayed a
portion of its order directing the Plaintiffs to withdraw a certain
exhibit from the Gilotti claim until further court order and gave
the Plaintiffs a deadline to file a motion for leave to file a
motion for reconsideration as to that portion of the order. The
Court subsequently granted the Plaintiffs leave to move for
reconsideration, which they timely filed.

On July 23, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
July 8, 2019 order to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit, even though this Court had not yet had an
opportunity to consider the Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration
or to rule on the Monster Energy issue that it had held in abeyance
in the July 8, 2019 order.

California's high court issued a decision in Monster Energy Co. v.
Schechter, 7 Cal. 5th 781 (2019), on July 11, 2019, affirming in
part and reversing in part Monster Energy I. The parties notified
the Court of the California Supreme Court's decision on July 25,
2019, and the Court set a briefing schedule on the impact of the
decision. The parties timely filed the requested briefs.

On Oct. 9, 2019, the Court issued an order on the Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration and other pending motions (Milliner v.
Mut. Sec., Inc. ("Milliner II"), No. 15-CV-03354-DMR, 2019 WL
5067012, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2019)). The Court granted in part
the motion for reconsideration for reasons unrelated to the instant
dispute.

As to the outstanding issue regarding the effect of Monster Energy
on Sturgeon-Garcia's ability to use the settlement agreement, the
Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter (as
well as two other pending motions) because the Plaintiffs' filing
of a notice of appeal of the July 8, 2019 Order had divested the
district court of its control over those aspects of the case
involved in the appeal. Therefore, it denied the outstanding
portion of MSI's motion to enforce the settlement agreement without
prejudice, along with the other pending motions.

The Ninth Circuit ultimately granted MSI's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' appeal for lack of jurisdiction (Milliner as Tr. of
Charlotte B. Milliner Tr. Dated Jan. 30, 1997 v. Mut. Sec., Inc.,
No. 19-16463, 2020 WL 4252641 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2020)).
Accordingly, the outstanding portion of MSI's motion to enforce the
settlement agreement is now appropriate for decision.

Judge Ryu states that it is undisputed that Sturgeon-Garcia was not
identified as a party to the settlement agreement and did not sign
the agreement. The parties dispute whether Sturgeon-Garcia is,
nonetheless, bound by its confidentiality provision.

Although the settlement agreement purports to impose
confidentiality on the Plaintiffs' counsel, neither Sturgeon-Garcia
nor any other attorney signed any part of the agreement, Judge Ryu
notes. Therefore, Monster Energy is of limited guidance since the
Court examined a narrow legal issue: whether an attorney's
signature approving an agreement as to form and content on behalf
of their clients "precludes, as a matter of law, a finding that
[they] also intended to be bound by the agreement."

Despite the inclusion of counsel in the confidentiality provision,
MSI offers no evidence that Sturgeon-Garcia outwardly manifested
consent to being bound by that provision or that he communicated
his consent to be bound to MSI, Judge Ryu notes. The Judge explains
that the settlement agreement does not name Sturgeon-Garcia (or any
other attorney) as a party to the agreement and he did not sign the
document to indicate his approval as to its form or content.

MSI argues that Sturgeon-Garcia's actions support the finding that
he consented to be bound by the confidentiality provision because
he participated in negotiating the agreement, advised his clients
to sign the agreement, and then accepted the benefits of the
agreement.

Setting aside the fact that the record does not contain any
evidence supporting these facts, MSI offers no authority that an
attorney may be bound by the terms of a contract or settlement
agreement under such circumstances, Judge Ryu opines. Instead, it
cites Lincoln General Ins. Co. v. Tri Counties Bank, No. CIV.
S-10-1442 FCD/E, 2010 WL 3069874, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2010),
for the proposition that "it is well-settled California law, that
manifestations of assent may come in multiple forms and need not
take the form of a signature. Rather, contract formation merely
requires a manifestation of assent by an act or omission through
which a party intends to show consent."

However, Lincoln General is distinguishable, Judge Ryu holds. In
Lincoln General, the plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of
contract based on a purported agreement between the plaintiff and
the defendant to set aside funds to back a bond the plaintiff
issued on behalf of a third party. The defendant was the only party
that signed the "set aside agreement," and it moved to dismiss the
claim, arguing that the fact that the plaintiff and the third party
had not signed the agreement was fatal to the claim. The court
rejected that argument, noting that a party may manifest assent to
a contract in multiple ways other than signing the contract. In
other words, the non-signing parties took affirmative actions that
objectively manifested their consent to the agreement.

In comparison, MSI does not provide evidence of any act or omission
by Sturgeon-Garcia by which he intended to communicate his consent,
Judge Ryu finds. In the absence of any evidence that
Sturgeon-Garcia consented to the settlement agreement and the
confidentiality provision therein, MSI has not established that he
was bound by it. Accordingly, it has not established that he
breached the confidentiality provision by attaching a copy of the
settlement agreement to Gilotti's FINRA claim.

MSI also argues that it is undisputed that the Plaintiffs are bound
by the settlement agreement's confidentiality provision. It asks
the Court to hold the Plaintiffs accountable for the numerous
breaches of the settlement agreement, as well. However, Judge Ryu
finds, MSI offers no evidence that Milliner or Brem personally
breached any provision of the settlement agreement, and does not
offer any theory by which they may be found in violation of the
agreement in these circumstances.

In sum, Judge Ryu holds, MSI has not established that the
Plaintiffs or Sturgeon-Garcia violated the confidentiality
provision of the June 1, 2018 settlement agreement between
Milliner, Brem, and MSI. That portion of the motion to enforce the
settlement agreement is, therefore, denied.

For these reasons, the portion of MSI's motion to enforce the
settlement agreement that was previously held in abeyance is
denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 28, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/wjfex4rs from Leagle.com.


MUTUAL SECURITIES: Milliner's Bid to Vacate Dismissal Order Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California denies the Plaintiffs' motion to
vacate dismissal order in the lawsuit entitled CHARLOTTE B.
MILLINER, et al., Plaintiffs v. MUTUAL SECURITIES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 15-cv-03354-DMR (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Charlotte B. Milliner and Joann Brem filed this putative
class action against Defendant Mutual Securities, Inc. ("MSI") in
2015. On June 1, 2018, following a settlement conference before the
undersigned, the parties resolved the Plaintiffs' individual claims
and executed a written settlement agreement the same day. The
parties subsequently consented to have this Court conduct all
further proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and matter
was reassigned to Judge Ryu on June 5, 2018.

On Sept. 11, 2018, the Court sua sponte entered the following order
dismissing the case: "On June 6, 2018, this case was transferred to
the undersigned solely for enforcement of the parties' settlement
agreement. The case may be reopened solely for that purpose. The
Clerk of Court will close the file" (Order Dismissing Case).

The Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to vacate the dismissal
order on July 16, 2019. MSI opposes the motion. In October 2019,
the Court denied the motion without prejudice on the ground that it
lacked jurisdiction to decide the motion pending resolution of the
Plaintiffs' appeal of an earlier court order to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit ultimately granted MSI's motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' appeal for lack of jurisdiction (Milliner as Tr. of
Charlotte B. Milliner Tr. Dated Jan. 30, 1997 v. Mut. Sec., Inc.,
No. 19-16463, 2020 WL 4252641 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2020)).

Discussion

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to vacate its September 11, 2018 sua
sponte dismissal order and permit the parties to submit a
stipulated request for dismissal. The Plaintiffs' motion is not a
model of clarity, but the basis for the request appears to be the
following: this lawsuit was filed as a putative class action
challenging MSI's investment approach.

The Plaintiffs settled and released their individual claims against
MSI. They did not release any claims by putative class members.
According to the Plaintiffs, the parties also "expressly agreed to
the timing and form of the dismissal to be entered in this case" in
connection with the settlement agreement. The Plaintiffs do not set
forth the terms of any such express agreement in their motion, but
cite an Aug. 4, 2018 email from the Plaintiffs' counsel to defense
counsel in which he references the timing of the filing of the
dismissal.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs' position was that MSI could file a
request to dismiss the case after Oct. 30, 2018, which was the date
Milliner and Brem's release of claims against MSI was effective.

As noted, the Court entered its sua sponte dismissal order on Sept.
11, 2018, over one month before the Oct. 30, 2018 date. The
Plaintiffs now contend that the Court's earlier dismissal of the
action may prejudice the putative class members, citing American
Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974). In American
Pipe, the Supreme Court held that "the commencement of a class
action suspends the applicable statute of limitations as to all
asserted members of the class who would have been parties had the
suit been permitted to continue as a class action."

According to the Plaintiffs, the Court's sua sponte dismissal order
resulted in potential prejudice to all putative class members
because MSI could argue that the statute of limitations clock for
all putative class members re-started following this Court's sua
sponte dismissal, rather than the later date agreed to by the
Parties.

Judge Ryu notes that there are numerous problems with the
Plaintiffs' motion. First and foremost, the Plaintiffs' position
that the entire action could be dismissed on Oct. 30, 2018, is not
supported by the settlement agreement itself. The Court has
reviewed the agreement, which was filed under seal in connection
with a different motion. The provision addressing the release of
the individual claims (Section 3), including its effective date,
says nothing about the timing of the dismissal.

Similarly, the provision of the agreement addressing the mechanics
of the dismissal (Section 2) is silent as to the date the dismissal
was to be filed with the Court. In other words, it appears that the
Plaintiffs have conflated the effective date of the release of
Milliner and Brem's individual claims with the dismissal of the
entire action, Judge Ryu says.

Moreover, the Plaintiffs offer no authority for the relief they
request, Judge Ryu opines. The Plaintiffs cite Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41, which governs dismissal of actions, and
American Pipe, but neither supports the relief the Plaintiffs seek
in this motion. The relevant portion of Rule 41 does not provide a
mechanism by which the Court may vacate a dismissal order, but
instead sets forth the circumstances in which a plaintiff may
voluntarily dismiss an action, and American Pipe did not involve a
party seeking to vacate a dismissal. Instead, Rule 60 governs
motions for relief from a final judgment or order.

To the extent that the Court construes the Plaintiffs' motion as a
Rule 60(b)(6) motion for relief from the Sept. 11, 2018 dismissal
order, the motion is denied as untimely. The Plaintiffs offer no
explanation for the 10-month delay in filing their motion, and
there is nothing in the record to suggest the Plaintiffs were
unaware of the Court's dismissal order and the relevant facts.

To the contrary, the Plaintiffs submit a Sept. 11, 2018 email in
which the parties' attorneys communicated about the Court's
dismissal of the action. The Plaintiffs do not assert the existence
of such circumstances here. For example, they offer no evidence
that any putative class member has suffered prejudice as a result
of the court's sua sponte dismissal of the action.

For these reasons, the Plaintiffs' motion to vacate the dismissal
order is denied.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 28, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/2ntjhpr9 from Leagle.com.


NETFLIX INC: Village of Shiloh Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled VILLAGE OF SHILOH, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NETFLIX, INC.; DIRECTV, LLC; DISH
NETWORK CORP.; DISH NETWORK, LLC; HULU, LLC; and DISNEY DTC, LLC,
Case No. 21-CH-0091, was removed from the Circuit Court for the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St. Clair County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois on July 15, 2021.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of Illinois assigned
Case No. 3:21-cv-00807 to the proceeding.

The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unjust enrichment and
violation of the Illinois Cable and Video Competition Law by
failing to apply for a franchise or pay franchise fees.

Netflix, Inc. is an American over-the-top content platform and
production company headquartered in Los Gatos, California.

DirecTV, LLC is an American direct broadcast satellite service
provider based in California.

Dish Network Corp. is a satellite television company based in
Colorado.

Dish Network, LLC is a satellite television company based in
Colorado.

Hulu, LLC is an American subscription video on demand service
provider based in California.

Disney DTC, LLC is a media company based in California. [BN]

The Defendant is represented by:          
         
         Mary Rose Alexander, Esq.
         Robert C. Collins III, Esq.
         LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
         330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
         Chicago, IL 60611
         Telephone: (312) 876-7700
         E-mail: mary.rose.alexander@lw.com
                 robert.collins@lw.com

                - and –

         Jean A. Pawlow, Esq.
         LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
         555 Eleventh Street, N.W., Suite 1000
         Washington, DC 20004
         Telephone: (202) 637-3330
         E-mail: jean.pawlow@lw.com

NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR: Court Refuses to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In Koehler v. Newfoundland and Labrador, 2021 NLSC 95, the Supreme
Court of Newfoundland and Labrador refused to certify a proposed
class action seeking damages for the provincial government's
COVID-19 travel restrictions.1 Justice Boone determined the class
action did not meet the requirements for certification under the
Class Actions Act.2

Koehler provides important guidance on the certification of claims
for Charter damages, particularly in the rapidly developing area of
mobility rights. On that score, the decision extends the Court of
Appeal for Ontario's recent line of jurisprudence articulating the
level of fault that will justify Charter damages.3 Even where fault
is alleged, a class proceeding will not be certified on bald
pleadings that the government knew it was violating the Charter.
More is required, and it was lacking here.

The authors served as co-counsel for the defendant, together with
Don Anthony, Q.C. of the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of
Justice.

The impugned travel restrictions
After the provincial government declared COVID-19 a public health
emergency in March 2020, the Chief Medical Officer of Health made
special orders prohibiting travel to Newfoundland and Labrador. The
orders included a list of exemptions. Individuals who did not fit
within a defined exemption could apply for one.

By the time that certification was argued in Koehler, the court had
already considered a different challenge to the same travel
restrictions in Taylor v. Newfoundland and Labrador, 2020 NLSC
125.4 In Taylor the court held: (a) the statute authorizing the
travel restrictions fell within provincial jurisdiction;5 (b) the
travel restrictions violated the Plaintiff's right to mobility
guaranteed by s. 6(1); and (c) the violation was justified under s.
1 of the Charter.

The proposed class action
The Koehlers are Ontario residents who own property and operate a
seasonal business in Newfoundland. They planned to travel to the
province in the spring of 2020 but cancelled those plans upon
hearing about the travel ban. In July, they applied for an
exemption, which was granted the following day. Thereafter, they
traveled to Newfoundland and operated their business.

The plaintiffs claimed that the government's travel restrictions
were negligent and amounted to a nuisance. They also claimed that
the travel restrictions violated their Charter rights to peaceful
assembly (s. 2(c)), mobility (s. 6), liberty and security of the
person (s. 7), and equality (s. 15). The plaintiffs claimed damages
at common law and under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a class proceeding for residents
of other provinces who owned property in Newfoundland and Labrador
and wanted to enter the province, but were barred by the travel
restrictions. At the hearing of the certification application, the
plaintiffs abandoned their claims for negligence and a breach of s.
7 of the Charter.

The certification decision
Justice Boone found that the Koehlers had failed to satisfy any of
the five criteria for certification:

The pleadings did not disclose a viable cause of action:
Freedom of assembly: The plaintiffs did not claim their freedom was
affected by restrictions on gatherings, but merely that they were
prevented from coming to the province. Peaceful assembly protects
people, not a particular venue.

Equality rights: Since a person's residence is clearly subject to
change, place of residency is not an analogous protected ground
under s. 15.

Charter damages: Though it was not "plain and obvious" that the
plaintiffs' mobility rights claim would fail, the claim for Charter
damages had no reasonable prospect of success. It was not enough to
baldly allege that the government knew or should have known that
its actions were unconstitutional, particularly since the travel
restrictions had been upheld in Taylor.

Nuisance: This tort requires an interference with the use of land
that affects the land itself or a related amenity. The travel
restrictions were directed at people, not land.

There was no identifiable class of two or more persons. The
plaintiffs had considerable difficulty defining an objective class
that did not depend on subjective intentions to enter the province.
When they focused instead on those who were actually denied entry,
they were met with the objection that they were no longer members
of their own class and there was no evidence of two or more persons
who might fit the class definition.

The claims did not raise any common issues. To the extent that any
of the plaintiffs' claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action,
the claim would be wholly determined by the circumstances of the
claimant, and it would be unsuitable for resolution in a class
proceeding. Further, there was no basis in fact to support the
fault required for Charter damages.

A class action was not the preferable procedure to resolve the
issues. Newfoundland and Labrador requires non-residents to opt
into class proceedings. Although the court accepted that the
Koehlers could be appointed as representative plaintiffs, the
proposed class was entirely composed of non-residents who would
have to opt-in. Therefore, a class proceeding offered no material
advantage over a joinder action.

The Koehlers were not suitable representative plaintiffs. Because
it was conceded that the plaintiffs were never prevented from
entering Newfoundland, they could not actually assert the claims
that they had pleaded.
Therefore, the court refused to certify a class proceeding.

Next steps

The defendant had brought an application for summary trial to
dismiss the Koehlers' underlying action, which was to be heard in
tandem with the plaintiffs' application for certification. For
procedural reasons, the hearing of the application for summary
trial was adjourned to September 2021. Given that the plaintiffs'
claims were effectively struck for failure to disclose a reasonable
cause of action, it remains to be seen whether they will continue
to resist the application for summary trial or consent to the
dismissal of their action. [GN]


OCUGEN INC: Robbins Geller Reminds of August 17 Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
The Ocugen, Inc. class action lawsuit charges Ocugen, Inc. (NASDAQ:
OCGN) and certain of its top executives with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks to represent purchasers
of Ocugen securities between February 2, 2021 and June 10, 2021,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Ocugen class action lawsuit
(Nicanor v. Ocugen, Inc., No. 21-cv-02725) was commenced on June
17, 2021 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and is assigned to
Judge C. Darnell Jones, II.

If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Ocugen class action lawsuit, please provide your
information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney J.C.
Sanchez of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Ocugen class
action lawsuit must be filed with the court no later than August
17, 2021.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Ocugen class action lawsuit alleges that,
throughout the Class Period, defendants made false and misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (i) the information that
Ocugen submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA")
was insufficient to support an Emergency Use Authorization ("EUA");
(ii) Ocugen would not file an EUA with the FDA; and (iii) as a
result, Ocugen's financial statements, as well as defendants'
statements about Ocugen's business, operations, and prospects were
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On June 10, 2021, Ocugen issued a press release announcing that it
would pursue a biologics license application ("BLA") with the FDA
instead of the previously announced EUA. In doing so, Ocugen
revealed that "[t]he FDA provided feedback to Ocugen regarding the
Master File the Company had previously submitted and recommended
that Ocugen pursue a BLA submission instead of an EUA application
for its vaccine candidate and requested additional information and
data. Ocugen is in discussions with the FDA to understand the
additional information required to support a BLA submission. The
Company anticipates that data from an additional clinical trial
will be required to support the submission." On this news, the
price of Ocugen's stock fell more than 28%, damaging investors.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Ocugen
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Ocugen class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is
generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Ocugen class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Ocugen class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to
share in any potential future recovery of the Ocugen class action
lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff.

            ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

With 200 lawyers in 9 offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP is the largest U.S. law firm representing investors in
securities class actions. Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained
many of the largest shareholder recoveries in history, including
the largest securities class action recovery ever – $7.2 billion
– in In re Enron Corp. Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class
Action Services Top 50 Report ranked Robbins Geller first for
recovering $1.6 billion for investors last year, more than double
the amount recovered by any other securities plaintiffs' firm.
Please visit https://www.rgrdlaw.com/firm.html for more
information.

Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.

Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101
J.C. Sanchez, 800-449-4900
jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com [GN]

OMAR'S PLANET: Fernandez Seeks Delivery Workers' Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
SEBASTIAN FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. OMAR'S PLANET PIZZA
LLC d/b/a PLANET PIZZA and OMAR BARRIGA, Defendants, Case No.
3:21-cv-00956 (D. Conn., July 10, 2021) brings this collective
action complaint against the Defendants for their alleged
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Connecticut
Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff has worked for the Defendants as a delivery worker
from on or about June 2020 through on or about September 20, 2020.

The Plaintiff claims that although he customarily and regularly
worked between 50 and 60 hours per week throughout his employment
with the Defendants, he was only compensated for the first 40 hours
he worked. The Defendant purportedly required him to "clock in" and
"clock out" at the beginning and end of each shift using an
electronic device that kept track of his total hours worked per
week, but his paystub received each week incorrectly listed that he
has worked 40 hours only a week. As a result, he was not
compensated for the overtime hours he has worked at the rate of one
and one-half times his regular rate of pay as required by the FLSA
and CMWA, the Plaintiff contends.

On behalf of himself and all other similarly situated delivery
workers, the Plaintiff seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, penalty damages, pre- and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief as the Court
deems just and equitable.

Omar's Planet Pizza, LLC d/b/a Planet Pizza operates a pizza
restaurant owned by Omar Barriga. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob Aronauer, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER
          225 Broadway, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Tel: (212) 323-6980
          E-mail: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com

ORPHAZYME A/S: Bernstein Liebhard Reminds of Sept. 7 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard, a nationally acclaimed investor rights law
firm, reminds investors of the deadline to file a Lead Plaintiff
motion in a securities class action lawsuit that has been filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or acquired the securities of
Orphazyme A/S ('Orphazyme' or the 'Company') (NASDAQ:ORPH) from
September 29, 2020 through June 18, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois alleges violations of the Securities Act of
1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased Orphazyme securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit Orphazyme Shareholder
Class Action Lawsuit or contact Noah Wiesner toll free at (877)
779-1414 or nwiesner@bernlieb.com

The complaint alleges that, in the Company's September 3, 2020
registration statement (the "Registration Statement") and
throughout the Class Period, defendants made materially false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations,
and compliance policies. Specifically, the Registration Statement
and defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) arimoclomol was not as effective in
treating Inclusion Body Myositis ("IBM") as defendants had
represented; (ii) arimoclomol was not as effective in treating
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ("ALS") as defendants had
represented; (iii) the arimoclomol new drug application ("NDA") for
Niemann-Pick disease type C ("NPC") was incomplete and/or required
additional evidence to support the benefit-risk assessment of that
NDA; (iv) as a result of (iii), the FDA was unlikely to approve the
arimoclomol NDA for NPC in its present form; (v) the Company's
overall business prospects, as well as arimoclomol's commercial
prospects, were significantly overstated; and (vi) as a result, the
Registration Statement and defendants' public statements throughout
the Class Period were materially false and/or misleading and failed
to state information required to be stated therein.

On March 29, 2021, Orphazyme issued a press release
"announcing[ing] its phase 2/3 trial evaluating arimoclomol for the
treatment of [IBM] … did not meet its primary and secondary
endpoints. On this news Orphazyme's American depositary share
("ADS") price fell $3.59 per ADS, or 28.97%, to close at $8.80 per
ADS on March 29, 2021.

On May 7, 2021, Orphazyme issued a press release "announc[ing]
topline data from pivotal trial of arimoclomol in [ALS.]" The press
release disclosed that the Company's "pivotal trial…did not meet
its primary and secondary endpoints to show benefit in people
living with ALS." On this news, Orphazyme's ADS price fell $2.81
per ADS, or 32.83%, to close at $5.75 per ADS on May 7, 2021.

Then, on June 18, 2021, Orphazyme issued a press release announcing
receipt of a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the FDA
following the agency's review of the NDA for arimoclomol for the
treatment of NPC. The press release disclosed that the FDA had
rejected the arimoclomol NDA for NPC. On this news, Orphazyme's ADS
price fell $7.23 per ADS, or 49.66%, to close at $7.33 per ADS on
June 18, 2021.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 7, 2021. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as lead plaintiff. If you choose to take no action,
you may remain an absent class member.

If you purchased Orphazyme securities, and/or would like to discuss
your legal rights and options please visit
https://www.bernlieb.com/cases/orphazyme-orph-shareholder-class-action-lawsuit-fraud-stock-410/apply/
or contact Noah Wiesner toll free at (877) 779-1414 or
nwiesner@bernlieb.com

Since 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP has recovered over $3.5 billion
for its clients. In addition to representing individual investors,
the Firm has been retained by some of the largest public and
private pension funds in the country to monitor their assets and
pursue litigation on their behalf. As a result of its success
litigating hundreds of lawsuits and class actions, the Firm has
been named to The National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List"
thirteen times and listed in The Legal 500 for ten consecutive
years.

Contact Information:

Noah Wiesner
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
https://www.bernlieb.co
(877) 779-1414
Nwiesner@bernlieb.com [GN]

ORPHAZYME A/S: Schall Law Firm Reminds of Sept. 7 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
The Schall Law Firm, a national shareholder rights litigation firm,
on July 13 announced the filing of a class action lawsuit against
Orphazyme A/S ("Orphazyme" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: ORPH) for
violations of the federal securities laws.

Investors who purchased the Company's shares pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's initial public offering conducted on
September 29, 2020 (the "IPO"), or between September 29, 2020 and
June 18, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to
contact the firm before September 7, 2021.

We also encourage you to contact Brian Schall of the Schall Law
Firm, 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at
310-301-3335, to discuss your rights free of charge. You can also
reach us through the firm's website at www.schallfirm.com, or by
email at brian@schallfirm.com.

The class, in this case, has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the Complaint, the Company made false and misleading
statements to the market. Orphazyme's arimoclomol was not an
effective treatment for Inclusion Body Myositis ("IBM").
Arimoclomol was also not an effective treatment for Amyotrophic
Lateral Sclerosis ("ALS"). The Company's new drug application
("NDA") for arimoclomol for the treatment of Niemann-Pick disease
type C ("NPC") was not complete and would require additional data
to support its benefit-risk analysis. The FDA was not likely to
approve the Company's NDA for arimoclomol. Based on these facts,
the Company's public statements were false and materially
misleading throughout the class period. When the market learned the
truth about Orphazyme, investors suffered damages.

Join the case to recover your losses.

The Schall Law Firm represents investors around the world and
specializes in securities class action lawsuits and shareholder
rights litigation.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and rules of ethics.

Contacts:
The Schall Law Firm
Brian Schall, Esq.
www.schallfirm.com
Office: 310-301-3335
info@schallfirm.com [GN]

ORPHAZYME A/S: Wolf Haldenstein Reminds of September 7 Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP disclosed that a federal
securities class action lawsuit has been filed against Orphazyme
A/S (NASDAQ: ORPH) ("Orphazyme") in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired the American Depositary Receipts
("ADRs") of Orphazyme A/S between September 29, 2020 and June 18,
2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

All investors who purchased the ADRs of Orphazyme A/S and incurred
losses are urged to contact the firm immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may
obtain additional information concerning the action or join the
case on our website, www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses in the ADRs of Orphazyme A/S, you may,
no later than September 7, 2021, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class. Please contact Wolf
Haldenstein to learn more about your rights as an investor in the
ADRs of Orphazyme A/S.

On March 29, 2021, Orphazyme issued a press release "announc[ing]
its Phase 2/3 trial evaluating arimoclomol for the treatment of
[IBM] . . . . did not meet its primary and secondary endpoints." On
this news Orphazyme's ADRs fell $3.59 per ADR, or 28.97%, to close
at $8.80 per ADR on March 29, 2021.

Subsequently on May 7, 2021, Orphazyme issued a press release
"announc[ing] topline data from pivotal trial of arimoclomol in
[ALS.]" The press release disclosed that the Company's "pivotal
trial . . . . did not meet its primary and secondary endpoints to
show benefit in people living with ALS." On this news, Orphazyme's
ADS price fell $2.81 per ADR, or 32.83%, to close at $5.75 per ADR
on May 7, 2021.

Finally, on June 18, 2021, Orphazyme issued a press release
announcing receipt of a Complete Response Letter ("CRL") from the
FDA following the agency's review of the NDA for arimoclomol for
the treatment of NPC. The press release disclosed that the FDA had
rejected the arimoclomol NDA for NPC.

On this news, Orphazyme's ADS price fell $7.23 per ADR, or 49.66%,
to close at $7.33 per ADR on June 18, 2021.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735, via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com, or visit our website at www.whafh.com. [GN]


OUTLAW LABORATORIES: Skyline Loses Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE OUTLAW LABORATORIES, LP LITIGATION,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00840-GPC-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo
P. Curiel entered an order denying Skyline Market's motion for
class certification.

The Court said, "Because Skyline Market fails to establish the
"threshold" requirement of Rule Rule 23(b) Analysis 23(a), the
Court will not proceed with analyzing whether the proposed class
satisfies the requirements in Rule 23(b)."

As this Court and the remaining Parties are aware, the instant
Motion arises from the allegations that Tauler Smith, with the
now-dismissed "Outlaw Defendants" (consisting of Outlaw Laboratory,
LP, Michael Wear, and Shawn Lynch), engaged in a 26 "scheme to
defraud thousands of mom and pop convenience stores across the
country.

Allegedly an "Outlaw Enterprise" (in violation of the Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO")) existed, which
mailed fraudulent demand letters to stores across the country,
threatening liability for selling "sexual enhancement products"
unless the stores settled.

Skyline Market moves for class certification on the First, Second,
and Third Causes of Action, which allege two violations of RICO, 10
U.S.C. section 1962(c) and (d), and seek "rescission" of the
settlements that various stores entered to succumb to the Outlaw
Enterprise's demand letters. The proposed "Payment Class" presented
by Skyline Market is the following:

   "All retail entities in the United States that received a
   demand letter sent on behalf of Outlaw Laboratory, LP, in
   which Outlaw Laboratory threatened litigation over the
   entity's sale of ‘sexual enhancement products,' and where the

   recipient thereafter paid money to Outlaw Laboratory, Tauler
   Smith LLP, or an agent of either to 'settle' the claim."

Skyline Market wishes to represent the proposed Payment Class, with
the class counsel being Gaw Poe, the counsel currently representing
Skyline Market, among other counter-claimants in this lawsuit.

Originally, Skyline Market, along with Counterclaimant Roma Mikha,
Inc. and Third-Party Plaintiff NMRM, Inc. moved to certify two
other classes in addition to the Payment Class, the "Threatened
Stores" and "Sued Stores." See1 ECF No. 179. Generally speaking,
the Threatened Stores consisted of stores that received a demand
letter but were thereafter not named as defendants in litigation
brought by Outlaw Laboratory, LP, and the Sued Stores consisted of
stores that were indeed sued.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3isQPXi at no extra charge.[CC]

PACE UNIVERSITY: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pace University. The
case is styled as Arturo Stevez, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Pace University, Case No.
1:21-cv-06170 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Pace University -- https://www.pace.edu/ -- is a private university
with its main campus in New York City and secondary campuses in
Westchester County, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


PAVILIONS MARKET: Bid to Continue Class Cert. Deadline Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHEL MENDOZA, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. PAVILIONS MARKET;
THE VONS COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-03353-RGK-JPR (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order denying the
parties' joint stipulation to continue the Plaintiff's deadline to
file a motion for class certification.

Judge Klausner says that he tossed the motion as there are no good
cause shown.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hQFocL at no extra charge.[CC]

The Attorneys for the Plaintiffs, and the Putative Class, are:

          Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
          Esther L. Bylsma, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE
          COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  ebylsma@schneiderwallace.com

The Attorneys for the Defendants are:

          R. Brian Dixon, Esq.
          Christopher L. Dengler, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          333 Bush Street 34F
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 422-1940
          Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
          E-mail: bdixon@littler.com
                  cdengler@littler.com

PAVILIONS MARKET: Class Cert Bid Filing Continued to August 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rachel Mendoza v.
Pavilions Market, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03353-RGK-JPR (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge R. Gary Klausner entered an order continuing
the deadline to move for class certification until August 30,
2021.

On April 19, 2021, Ms. Rachel Mendoza filed a putative class action
complaint against Pavilions Market, The Vons Companies, Inc., and
Albertsons Companies, Inc., alleging various California wage and
hour violations. The case was reassigned to this Court on April 22,
2021. Later, the parties stipulated to Albertsons's dismissal.

The Court's Standing Order mandates that motions for class
certification be brought within days, "unless [a] showing of good
cause has been made." Based on the date of the reassignment, the
current cutoff to move for class certification is July 22, 2021.

On July 9, 2021, just a couple weeks before the deadline's
expiration, the parties stipulated to vacate that current deadline
and have the Court assign a new deadline at the status conference.
The Court denied the stipulation on July 12, 2021.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eDYp0a at no extra charge.[CC]


PAVILIONS MARKET: Court Signs Protective Order in Mendoza Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jean Rosenbluth of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California signed the parties' Stipulated
Protective Order in the lawsuit entitled RACHEL MENDOZA, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v.
PAVILIONS MARKET, THE VONS COMPANIES, INC., ALBERTSONS COMPANIES
INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-03353-RGK-JPR (C.D. Cal.).

Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of
confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special
protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose
other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted.
Accordingly, the parties stipulate to and petition the Court to
enter the Stipulated Protective Order.

The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket
protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that
the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends
only to the limited information or items that are entitled to
confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The
parties further acknowledge that this Stipulated Protective Order
does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal;
Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be
followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks
permission from the Court to file material under seal.

This class action for allegedly not paying employees for all time
worked and not providing meal and rest periods will involve
personal and private information regarding the employees who are
putative class members, confidential information regarding the
Defendants' wage rates and benefits and the manner in which they
process payroll, trade secrets and other valuable research,
development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary
information for which special protection from public disclosure and
from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is
warranted.

The confidential and proprietary materials and information may
consist of, among other things, the employment of class members,
the terms of such employment, employees' rates of pay, the wage
rates paid by the Defendants, the manner in which the Defendants
record work time and process payroll and other confidential
business or financial information, information regarding
confidential business practices, or other confidential research,
development, or commercial information (including information
implicating privacy rights of third parties).

Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the
prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery
materials, to adequately protect information the parties are
entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are
permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation
for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the
end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective
order for such information is justified in this matter.

The parties note that it is their intent that information will not
be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing
be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been
maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good
cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case.

The Stipulation defines several relevant terms, including
"CONFIDENTIAL" Information or Items: Information (regardless of how
it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that
qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c),
and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement.

The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not
only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or
extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts,
summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any
testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their
Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.

Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by the
orders of the trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of
Protected Material at trial.

Even after final disposition of this litigation, the
confidentiality obligations imposed by this Order will remain in
effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a
court order otherwise directs. Final disposition will be deemed to
be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this
Action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein
after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings,
remands, trials, or reviews of this Action, including the time
limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time
pursuant to applicable law.

Each Party or Non-Party that designates information or items for
protection under this Order must take care to limit any such
designation to specific material that qualifies under the
appropriate standards. The Designating Party must designate for
protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or oral
or written communications that qualify so that other portions of
the material, documents, items, or communications for which
protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the
ambit of this Order.

The Stipulation also provides, among other things, that if a Party
is served with a subpoena or a court order issued in other
litigation that compels disclosure of any information or items
designated in this Action as "CONFIDENTIAL," that Party must:

   1. Promptly notify in writing the Designating Party. Such
      notification include a copy of the subpoena or court order
      unless prohibited by law;

   2. Promptly notify in writing the party who caused the
      subpoena or order to issue in the other litigation that
      some or all of the material covered by the subpoena or
      order is subject to this Protective Order. Such
      notification will include a copy of this Stipulated
      Protective Order; and

   3. Cooperate with respect to all reasonable procedures sought
      to be pursued by the Designating Party whose Protected
      Material may be affected.

A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulated Protective Order dated
June 28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/7ey36jdx from
Leagle.com.

Esther Lee Bylsma -- ebylsma@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP, in Emeryville, California,
Attorney(s) for the Plaintiff(s).

Christopher Lee Dengler -- cdengler@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C., in Los Angeles, California, Attorney(s) for the
Defendant(s).


PAY READY: Lawrence Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN LAWRENCE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PAY READY, INC., f/k/a DEBT LOGIC, INC., Case No.
8:21-cv-01711 (M.D. Fla., July 14, 2021) is a case involving
numerous violations of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by a debt
collection company Pay Ready.

According to the complaint, Pay Ready, which was formerly known as
Debt Logic, Inc., refuses to abide by the FDCPA because it
fraudulently takes the position it is not a debt collector. Indeed,
its website contends exactly that, stating "[w]e are not a
collection agency." https://www.payready.com, (last accessed July
13, 2021).

Pay Ready blatantly disregards the FDCPA by deceptively calling
people throughout the country and not telling them in the initial
oral communication that they are "attempting to collect a debt and
any information will be used for that purpose, says the suit.

Pay Ready, called Plaintiff approximately four times in an attempt
to collect a debt. However, in clear violation of the FDCPA, as is
their customary practice, failed to inform Plaintiff that they are
a debt collector attempting to collect a debt and that any
information will be used for that purpose. Pay Ready also, as part
of their illegal scheme, does not tell consumers the specific
amount of the debt or perhaps, most importantly, their rights
concerning how to dispute and how to obtain verification of the
debt, the suit alleges.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
          William "Billy" Peerce Howard, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
          401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 500-1500
          E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
                  Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

PFIZER INC: Subsidiaries Agree to Pay $345M in EpiPen Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc. and two of its subsidiaries have agreed to pay $345
million under a proposed settlement to resolve lawsuits over EpiPen
price hikes.

In documents filed in federal court in Kansas City, Kansas, the New
York-based Pfizer and its subsidiaries -- Maryland-based Meridian
Medical Technologies Inc. and Tennessee-based King Pharmaceuticals
-- asked the court to grant preliminary approval to the settlement,
Kansas City's NPR station KCUR-FM reported.

The litigation dates to 2016, when numerous class-action lawsuits
were filed around the country alleging that the companies engaged
in anticompetitive conduct related to EpiPen. The cases were
transferred to the Kansas court because of its centralized
location.

Mylan, a Pennsylvania-based company that is also a defendant in the
litigation, owns the rights to the EpiPen brand, but the devices
are manufactured by Pfizer.

EpiPens, which are auto-injectable devices that deliver the drug
epinephrine, are used for emergency treatment of a life-threatening
allergic reaction known as anaphylaxis.

When Mylan acquired the right to market and distribute the devices
in 2007, an EpiPen package cost about $100. Today, it costs more
than $650 without pharmacy coupons or manufacturer discounts.

The proposed settlement comes three weeks after U.S. District Judge
Daniel Crabtree dismissed most of the claims against Mylan. But he
allowed other antitrust claims against the company to proceed to
trial, which is scheduled to begin Sept. 7.

A Pfizer spokesperson denied any wrongdoing in an email to KCUR,
saying the resolution reflects a desire by the company to avoid
"the distraction of continued litigation and focus on breakthroughs
that change patients' lives."

Rex Sharp, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said his clients were
pleased that Pfizer had agreed to the settlement, noting it would
still need the court's approval. He said they look forward to going
to trial on the remaining claims against Mylan.

When Crabtree dismissed most of the claims against Mylan, he also
granted a summary judgment to Mylan's former CEO, Heather Bresch,
the daughter of Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia. Most
of the price hikes occurred during her tenure. She stepped down in
2020 following Mylan's merger with Pfizer's Upjohn unit to form
Pennsylvania-based Viatris. [GN]

PILOT TRAVEL: Waltrip Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Truck Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTON WALTRIP, ET AL., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC, and
PILOT CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-00642-GBW-KRS
(D.N.M., July 14, 2021) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act and the Fair
Labor Standards Act by failing to compensate the Plaintiffs and all
others similarly situated overtime pay for all hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Plaintiffs worked for the Defendants as truck drivers in New
Mexico.

Pilot Travel Centers, LLC is a provider of travel centers in North
America, with its principal place of business at 5508 Lonas Drive,
Knoxville, Tennessee.

Pilot Corporation is a provider of travel centers in North America,
with its principal place of business at 5508 Lonas Drive,
Knoxville, Tennessee. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                                 
                                    
         
         Benjamin W. Allen, Esq.
         WALLACE & ALLEN, LLP
         440 Louisiana, Suite 1500
         Houston, TX 77002
         Telephone: (713) 224-1744
         Facsimile: (713) 227-0104
         E-mail: ballen@wallaceallen.com

PINGUIL INC: Faces Thao FLSA Suit Over Mandatory Tip Pooling
------------------------------------------------------------
Shiomi Thao, individually and on behalf of the Proposed Class v.
Pinguil, Inc. d/b/a/ Chimborazo Restaurant, and Marcos Pinguil,
Case No. 27-CV-21-8568 (Minn. Dist., Hennepin Cty., July 12, 2021)
asserts claims against the Defendants' alleged mandatory tip
pooling, failure to pay minimum wage and wrongful termination
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the Class members
were not allowed to opt-out of the tip pool. Ultimately, the
Plaintiff and the Class members were not "voluntarily sharing
gratuities with other employees," and Defendants' tip pooling
scheme thus violated Minn. Stat. 177.24, subd.

Plaintiff Shiomi Thao is an adult resident of the State of
Minnesota. The Plaintiff was employed as a server at Chimborazo
from approximately May 2019 to December 3, 2020.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Minneapolis. The
Defendant Pinguil was and is a Minnesota corporation with its
principle place of business located at 2851 Central A venue NE,
Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Chief Executive Officer of Pinguil,
Inc. was Marcos Pinguil.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Moreland, Esq.
          HALUNEN LAW
          1650 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: moore@halunenlaw.com
                  moreland@halunenlaw.com

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Lichtinger Suit Moved From N.D. to S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled LIZA LICHTINGER, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER &
GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-02680-MMC (N.D. Cal.),
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Francisco Division, signed the parties' stipulation and order
to transfer venue to the Southern District of New York.

There are multiple pending class action cases alleging
misrepresentation in connection with the sale of Defendant P&G Gum
& Enamel Repair toothpaste: The matter pending before the Court
("Lichtinger"); Neves v. The Procter & Gamble Co., No.
7:21-cv-00186, pending in the Southern District of New York before
Judge Cathy Seibel; and Keirsted v. The Procter & Gamble Co., No.
6:21-cv-0778, pending in the Middle District of Florida before
Judge Roy B. Dalton ("Related Cases").

All of the cases involve the same class allegations that P&G's gum
repair representation is false, misleading, and reasonably likely
to deceive the public.

All parties to the different cases have conferred and agree that
the transfer and consolidation of Lichtinger and Keirsted to the
Southern District of New York into the Nieves action is in the
interest of all parties and will advance judicial economy and the
efficient use of resources by all parties because: (i) the transfer
and consolidation of the claims from Lichtinger to Nieves
eliminates a situation in which there are three overlapping cases
pending in three different federal courts, all alleging
misrepresentation regarding the sale of the Products and all are
brought as class actions; (ii) the transfer and consolidation of
the claims from Lichtinger will end the current situation in which
P&G is subject to discovery in three cases that is often
overlapping and/or covers the same facts; and (iii) the transfer
and consolidation of the claims from Lichtinger will eliminate the
possibility of inconsistent rulings and verdicts, in that all
claims involving alleged misrepresentation of the Products will be
litigated together, and the Plaintiffs will submit one motion for
class certification on behalf of consumers in one court, rather
than three overlapping class certification motions at three
separate times in three separate courts.

Because the subject matter of this action is the same as the
first-filed Nieves action and the Plaintiffs in the Related Cases
already have a plan in place to litigate their claims together as
part of Nieves, principles of sound judicial administration counsel
that this action be transferred to the Southern District of New
York under the first-to-file rule.

District Judge Maxine M. Chesney notes that transfer of this action
to the Southern District of New York is also appropriate under 28
U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Section 1404(1) provides: "For the
convenience of patties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a
district court may transfer any civil action to any other district
or division where it might have been brought or to any district or
division to which all parties have consented."

Therefore, the parties agree and stipulate as follows: The parties
stipulate and jointly move this Court to transfer the individual
and class claims in Lichtinger made by Plaintiff Liza Lichtinger,
pursuant to California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and stipulate that those claims in Nieves
should be designated as related cases and that Lichtinger's claims
should be consolidated with the Nieves action. The relevant
limitations period for Plaintiff Lichtinger's claims will be
governed by applicable law in the jurisdiction where originally
filed.

The parties represent that they are submitting a courtesy copy of
this Stipulation and Proposed Order to Judge Seibel.

A full-text copy of the Court-signed Stipulation and Order dated
June 28, 2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/32t85xay from
Leagle.com.

BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, PC, Patricia N. Syverson --
psyberson@bffb.com -- in San Diego, California.

Elaine A. Ryan -- eryan@bffb.com -- Carrie A. Laliberte --
claliberte@bffb.com -- in Phoenix, Arizona, Counsel for Plaintiff
Liza Lichtinger and the Proposed Class.

KING & SPALDING LLP, GEORGE R. MORRIS -- gmorris@kslaw.com -- in
San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendant The Procter
Company.


QUEBEC: Court Allows Class Action Against Rental Car Companies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Guy at driving.ca reports that looking closely at most
rental car contracts will uncover a host of fine print, not the
least of which included the stipulation that all drivers must be
over the age of 25 years. Now, the Quebec Superior Court has
authorized a class-action suit against that very matter.

The grievance, lodged by a group called Option consommateurs,
alleges car rental companies have run afoul of the Consumer
Protection Act by charging additional fees to drivers aged 16 - 25
or simply refusing to rent them a car at all, even when the young
driver carried their own valid insurance. This class action lawsuit
covers the gamut of major rental outfits including the likes of
Avis, Discount, Hertz — basically most of the brands you see in
the arrivals area of a major airport.

Option consommateurs, who describe themselves as a non-profit
consumer organization dedicated to promoting and defending the
interests of Canadian consumers, note that certain situations do
permit a distinction, exclusion, or preference based on age
(particularly in an insurance contract). They argue, however, that
these exceptions would not be provided for in the case of car
rentals.

"Younger drivers were already having to pay more to insure their
vehicles because of their age," said Sylvie De Bellefeuille, who is
working with Option consommateurs on this matter. The group further
argues "the fees imposed by lessors penalize them a second time,"
presumably referring to the higher insurance costs borne by new
drivers in addition to the rental restrictions.

In case you fell asleep in law class, a class-action suit is
brought by one or more representative plaintiffs on behalf of a
larger group of persons. Leaders of this suit have invited eligible
Canadians who feel they've been denied a rental since August 16,
2016 to contact the group if they wish to be part of the case. [GN]

RIVIERA MAYA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cruz Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
DOMINGO TOVAR CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIVIERA MAYA, INC. d/b/a LOS
AMIGOS PORTAGE; FRANCISCO HERNANDEZ; FELIPE ORTIZ; and JULIO RUIZ,
Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-00564 (W.D. Mich., July 2, 2021) is an
action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.

Plaintiff Cruz was employed by the Defendants as waiter.

RIVIERA MAYA, INC. d/b/a LOS AMIGOS PORTAGE owns and operates a
restaurant in Portage, Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Anthony Alvarez, Esq.
          AVANTI LAW GROUP PLLC
          600 28th Street SW
          Wyoming, MI 49509
          Telephone: (616) 257-6807
          E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com

ROCKET COMPANIES: Faces Arent Securities Suit Over Stock Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
OWEN ARENT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ROCKET COMPANIES, INC., JAY D. FARNER, JULIE R. BOOTH,
ROBERT DEAN WALTERS, and DANIEL GILBERT, Case No.
2:21-cv-11618-JEL-APP (E.D. Mich., July 13, 2021) is a federal
securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Rocket Class
A common stock between February 25, 2021 and May 5, 2021, both
dates inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against Rocket and certain of the Company's
senior officers and directors.

Rocket is the largest mortgage originator in the U.S., with an
estimated 9.2% market share as of March 31, 2020. The Company
operates two primary segments: (i) the Direct-to-Consumer segment;
and (ii) the Partner Network segment. In its Direct-to-Consumer
segment, Rocket directly interacts with clients and potential
clients using various performance marketing channels. In its
Partner Network segment, Rocket partners with third parties who
utilize the Company's platform to provide their clients with
mortgage solutions.

Rocket's mortgage origination business generates revenues primarily
from the gain on sale of loans, which includes loan origination
fees, revenues from sales of loans into the secondary market, as
well as the fair value of originated mortgage serving rights and
hedging gains and losses. One of the most important metrics in
measuring Rocket's financial performance is the Company's gain on
sale margin, which refers to the Company's net gain on sale of
loans divided by the net rate lock volume for the period, excluding
all reverse mortgage activity. Net rate lock volume refers to the
unpaid principal balance of loans issued by the Company subject to
interest rate lock commitments, net of certain factors identified
by the Company. The gain on sale margin is viewed by investors as a
core measure of Rocket's profitability.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operations, and compliance policies.

Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that Rocket's gain on sale
margins were contracting at the highest rate in two years as a
result of increased competition among mortgage lenders, an
unfavorable shift toward the lower margin Partner Network operating
segment and compression in the price spread between the primary and
secondary mortgage markets.

On May 5, 2021, Rocket issued a press release announcing its first
quarter results and second quarter outlook. Rocket reported that it
was on track to achieve closed loan volume within a range of only
$82.5 billion and $87.5 billion and gain on sale margins within a
range of only 2.65% to 2.95% for the second quarter of 2021.

the Class Period had in fact reversed. During a conference call to
explain the results, Rocket's Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") and
Treasurer, Defendant Julie R. Booth ("Booth"), revealed that the
sharp decline in quarterly gain on sale margin was being caused by
three factors pressure on loan pricing.

On this news, Rocket's Class A common stock price fell $3.79 per
share, or 16.62%, to close at $19.01 per share on May 6, 2021, on
heavy volume of over 37 million shares traded. As the market
continued to digest the news in the days that followed, Rocket's
Class A common stock price continued to decline, falling to a low
of just $16.48 per share by May 11, 2021.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of Rocket Class A common
stock, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit says.

The Plaintiff purchased Rocket Class A common stock at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the
revelation of the alleged corrective disclosures.

Defendant Rocket is an online mortgage lender. Rocket Class A
common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") under
the ticker symbol "RKT."

The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ &
          GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com

ROCKET COMPANIES: Levi & Korsinsky Reminds of August 30 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Rocket Companies, Inc. ("Rocket Companies") (NYSE:
RKT) between February 25, 2021 and May 5, 2021. You are hereby
notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan. To get more information go to:

https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/rocket-companies-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17661&wire=5

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

Rocket Companies, Inc. NEWS - RKT NEWS

CASE DETAILS: According to the filed complaint: (a) Rocket's gain
on sale margins were contracting at the highest rate in two years
as a result of increased competition among mortgage lenders, an
unfavorable shift toward the lower margin Partner Network operating
segment and compression in the price spread between the primary and
secondary mortgage markets; (b) Rocket was engaged in a price war
and battle for market share with its primary competitors in the
wholesale market, which was further compressing margins in Rocket's
Partner Network operating segment; (c) the adverse trends
identified above were accelerating and, as a result, Rocket's gain
on sale margins were on track to plummet at least 140 basis points
in the first six months of 2021; (d) as a result of the above, the
favorable market conditions that had preceded the Class Period and
allowed Rocket to achieve historically high gain on sale margins
had vanished as the Company's gain on sale margins had returned to
levels not seen since the first quarter of 2019; (e) rather than
remaining elevated due to surging demand, Rocket's Company-wide
gain-on-sale margins had fallen materially below recent historical
averages; and (f) as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business operations and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

WHAT THIS MEANS TO SHAREHOLDERS: If you suffered a loss in Rocket
Companies, you have until August 30, 2021 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

NO COST TO YOU: If you purchased Rocket Companies securities
between February 25, 2021 and May 5, 2021, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.

PROTECT YOUR FINANCIAL INTERESTS: Complete this brief submission
form
https://www.zlk.com/pslra-1/rocket-companies-inc-loss-submission-form?prid=17661&wire=5
or call 212-363-7500 to discuss the case with Joseph E. Levi, Esq.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Levi & Korsinsky have a proven track record
of winning cases worth hundreds of millions of dollars for
shareholders over a 20-year period. We represent and fight for
shareholders who have been wronged by corporations.

Levi & Korsinsky is a nationally recognized firm with offices in
New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington, D.C. The Firm's
Founding Partners, Joseph Levi and Eduard Korsinsky, have been
representing shareholders and institutional clients for almost 20
years and have achieved remarkable results for clients in the U.S.
and internationally. The firm, with more than 80 employees, is
committed to fostering, cultivating and preserving a culture of
diversity, equity and inclusion for employees and those that we
represent. Our attorneys have extensive expertise representing
investors in securities litigation with a track record of
recovering hundreds of millions of dollars in cases. Levi &
Korsinsky was ranked in Institutional Shareholder Services' ("ISS")
SCAS Top 50 Report for 7 years in a row as a top securities
litigation firm in the United States. The SCAS Top 50 Report
identifies the top plaintiffs' securities law firms in the country,
and year after year, ISS has recognized Levi & Korsinsky as a
leading firm in the area of securities class action litigation.
[GN]

ROCKET COMPANIES: Pomerantz LLP Reminds of August 30 Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 13 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Rocket Companies, Inc. ("Rocket" or the
"Company") (NYSE: RKT) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, and docketed under
21-cv-11618, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and
entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired
Rocket Class A common stock between February 25, 2021 and May 5,
2021, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") against Rocket and certain of the Company's senior officers.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Rocket
Class A Common stock during the Class Period, you have until August
30, 2021 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class. A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at newaction@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or
888.4-POMLAW), toll-free, Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail
are encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number,
and the number of shares purchased.

Rocket is the largest mortgage originator in the U.S., with an
estimated 9.2% market share as of March 31, 2020. The Company
operates two primary segments: (i) the Direct-to-Consumer segment;
and (ii) the Partner Network segment. In its Direct-to-Consumer
segment, Rocket directly interacts with clients and potential
clients using various performance marketing channels. In its
Partner Network segment, Rocket partners with third parties who
utilize the Company's platform to provide their clients with
mortgage solutions.

Rocket's mortgage origination business generates revenues primarily
from the gain on sale of loans, which includes loan origination
fees, revenues from sales of loans into the secondary market, as
well as the fair value of originated mortgage serving rights and
hedging gains and losses. One of the most important metrics in
measuring Rocket's financial performance is the Company's gain on
sale margin, which refers to the Company's net gain on sale of
loans divided by the net rate lock volume for the period, excluding
all reverse mortgage activity. Net rate lock volume refers to the
unpaid principal balance of loans issued by the Company subject to
interest rate lock commitments, net of certain factors identified
by the Company. The gain on sale margin is viewed by investors as a
core measure of Rocket's profitability.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Rocket's gain on sale margins
were contracting at the highest rate in two years as a result of
increased competition among mortgage lenders, an unfavorable shift
toward the lower margin Partner Network operating segment and
compression in the price spread between the primary and secondary
mortgage markets; (ii) Rocket was engaged in a price war and battle
for market share with its primary competitors in the wholesale
market, which was further compressing margins in Rocket's Partner
Network operating segment; (iii) the adverse trends identified
above were accelerating and, as a result, Rocket's gain on sale
margins were on track to plummet at least 140 basis points in the
first six months of 2021; (iv) as a result of the above, the
favorable market conditions that had preceded the Class Period and
allowed Rocket to achieve historically high gain on sale margins
had vanished as the Company's gain on sale margins had returned to
levels not seen since the first quarter of 2019; (v) rather than
remaining elevated due to surging demand, Rocket's Company-wide
gain-on-sale margins had fallen materially below recent historical
averages; and (vi) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business operations and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On May 5, 2021, Rocket issued a press release announcing its first
quarter results and second quarter outlook. Rocket reported that it
was on track to achieve closed loan volume within a range of only
$82.5 billion and $87.5 billion and gain on sale margins within a
range of only 2.65% to 2.95% for the second quarter of 2021. At the
mid-point, this gain on sale margin estimate equated to a 239 basis
point decline year-over-year and a 94 basis point decline
sequentially, which represented the Company's lowest quarterly gain
on sale margin in two years. The collapse in the Company's gain on
sale margin reflected the fact that the favorable market conditions
purportedly being experienced by the Company during the Class
Period had in fact reversed. During a conference call to explain
the results, Rocket's Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer,
Defendant Julie R. Booth, revealed that the sharp decline in
quarterly gain on sale margin was being caused by three factors:
(i) pressure on loan pricing; (ii) a product mix shift to Rocket's
lower margin Partner Network segment; and (iii) a compression in
price spreads between the primary and secondary mortgage markets.

On this news, Rocket's Class A common stock price fell $3.79 per
share, or 16.62%, to close at $19.01 per share on May 6, 2021, on
heavy volume of over 37 million shares traded. As the market
continued to digest the news in the days that followed, Rocket's
Class A common stock price continued to decline, falling to a low
of just $16.48 per share by May 11, 2021.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
and Paris is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the areas
of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation. Founded
by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the class
action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of securities
class actions. Today, more than 80 years later, the Pomerantz Firm
continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the rights
of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and
corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members. See
www.pomerantzlaw.com

CONTACT:

Robert S. Willoughby
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
888-476-6529 ext. 7980 [GN]

RUSSELL SAGE COLLEGE: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Russell Sage College.
The case is styled as Arturo Stevez, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Russell Sage College, Case No.
1:21-cv-06171 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Russell Sage College -- https://www.sage.edu/ -- is a coeducational
undergraduate and graduate college with campuses in two thriving
cities: Albany and Troy, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


S-L DISTRIBUTION: Seeks to Extend Class Cert. Reply to July 26
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN MARSTON and BELAL
SAFI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
S-L DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-02187-JEJ (M.D.
Pa.), Snyder's-Lance, Inc. moves under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 6(b)(1)(A) for a one-week extension of time to July 26,
2021, to respond to Plaintiffs Kevin Marston's and Belal Safi's
motion for class certification.

On December 20, 2019, Marston and Safi filed a one-count Complaint
on behalf of a putative class alleging that S-L misclassified them
as independent contractors and engaged in unlawful wage
"withholdings" and "deductions" in violation of New Hampshire
Revised Statutes sections 275:48, 57.

On April 30, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a cover Motion for Class
Certification. Thereafter, on May 14, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed
their Brief in Support of Their Motion for Class Certification,
thereby establishing a deadline of June 28, 2021 for S-L to file
its response.

S-L Distribution produces and distributes food products. The
Company offers snack pantry includes pretzels, sandwich crackers,
and potato chips.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 12, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3zoF2QF at no extra
charge.[CC]

Counsel for the Plaintiffs Kevin Marston and Belal Safi, are:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491

               - and -

          Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
          Matthew Thomson, Esq.
          Zachary L. Rubin, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800

               - and -

          Chad Hatmaker, Esq.
          J. Keith Coates, Esq.
          WOOLF, MCCLANE, BRIGHT
          ALLEN & CARPENTER, PLLC
          Post Office Box 900
          Knoxville, TN 37901
          Telephone: (865) 215-1000

The Attorneys for S-L Distribution Company, LLC, are:

          Michael J. Puma, Esq.
          Benjamin K. Jacobs, Esq.
          Emily C. Reineberg, Esq.
          1701 Market St.
          Antonia M. Moran (ECF User)
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-5000
          E-mail: michael.puma@morganlewis.com
                  benjamin.jacobs@morganlewis.com
                  emily.reineberg@morganlewis.com
                  toni.moran@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Sari Alamuddin, Esq.
          77 West Wacker Dr.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 324-1000
          E-mail: sari.alamuddin@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Lauren E. Marzullo, Esq.
          One Oxford Centre, Thirty-Second Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 560-330
          E-mail: lauren.marzullo@morganlewis.com

SEGA CORP: Faces Class Suit Over "Rigged" Key Master Arcade Games
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Al-Arshani, writing for Business Insider, reports that Sega's
Key Master arcade game is at the center of a class-action complaint
that says the game is intentionally rigged against players.

The lawsuit, filed on July 12 in California, said the game was
"systematically marketed and sold" as a game of "pure skill" but is
instead rigged to "prevent even highly-skilled users from being
able to win" until there's been a set number of losses.

Plaintiff Marcelo Muto is suing the company for $5 million.

"Nowhere on the Key Master Machine do Defendants inform consumers
of the truth: that the machines are rigged so that players can only
win prizes at certain times," lawyers for Muto said in the
lawsuit.

The game is found in arcades and malls across the country, Screen
Rant reported.

Players have to hit a button to move a key into a specific keyhole
to win prizes like earbuds and video games.

The lawsuit said that even if a highly skilled player were to move
the key into a specific keyhole for a prize, if it's not in a
pre-programmed time that allows for a win, the game will overshoot
the keyhole and the player would lose. There are multiple YouTube
videos with tips and tricks on how to beat the game that
acknowledge the issue.

In the lawsuit, Muto's lawyers said the default number of losses on
a machine is set to 700 before winning is allowed. They added that
each machine can also be individually programmed to any number of
losses before a win.

The game is no longer featured on Sega's website but a similar game
called Prize Locker was released and is advertised as a "100%
skilled-based" game. The lawsuit said Sega itself acknowledged the
game is not a game of "pure skill" with the rebrand.

The lawsuit said Sega made the switch because they realized
regulations in many places in the world don't allow the Key Master
game. They added that a conversion kit that was sold to remodel Key
Master machines into more skill-based machines also shows Sega was
aware of the issue.

"Defendants have refused to cease their deceptive conduct and
continue to manufacture and advertise the Key Master Machines as
games of skill, as opposed to the illicit gambling machines they
truly are," the lawsuit said. "This refusal, and continued
marketing of the Key Master Machines as games of skill, only serve
the profit interests of Defendants."

This isn't the first time the Key Master game has caused
controversy. Tucson.com reported in 2019 that a vendor settled a $1
million lawsuit over the game. Arizona Attorney General Mark
Brnovich said the game was set up to only allow someone to win
after 2,200 attempts and that it was more like a chance-based game,
which are only legal in casinos in the state.

Insider has attempted to reach Sega for comment. [GN]

SERVALL LLC: Hagye Loses Bid for Conditional Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY HAGYE, and ASHLYN
PENICK, v. SERVALL, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01196-JDB-jay (W.D.
Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Jon A. York entered an order denying the
motion of Plaintiffs for conditional class certification under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. sections 216(b).

On June 11, 2021, the parties notified the Court that this case has
settled in whole.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion is denied as
moot.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 13, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3BqlTiT at no extra charge.[CC]


SHOREFRONT OPERATING: Wins Bid to Reconsider Ruling in Chow Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
granted in part the Defendants' motion for reconsideration in the
lawsuit titled WALTER CHOW, as Administrator of The Estate of LEROY
CHOW, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. SHOREFRONT OPERATING LLC d/b/a SEAGATE REHABILITATION
AND NURSING CENTER; SHAINDY BERKO; ROCHEL DAVID; LEAH FRIEDMAN;
DEENA LANDA; ESTHER FARKOVITZ; AVI PHILIPSON; BERISH RUBINSTEIN;
DAVID RUBINSTEIN; BRUSCHA SINGER; JOEL ZUPNICK; SHOREFRONT REALTY
LLC; SENTOSACARE LLC AND DOES 1-25, Defendants, Case No.
1:19-cv-3541-FB-SJB (E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff Leroy Chow resided at Seagate Rehabilitation & Nursing
Center ("Facility") from February 2015 until August 2016. Chow
passed away on Dec. 27, 2017. He did not reside in the Facility at
the time of his death.

In 2018, Chow's estate asserted a putative class action claim
against the Facility (and various owners and operators thereof) for
"fail[ing] to staff a sufficient number of nurses and aides,
thereby depriving the Facility's residents of the level of care
required" under the New York Public Health Law ("PHL"). The
complaint seeks damages and injunctive relief.

On Sept. 25, 2020, the Court denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss all claims against them ("September Order"). The Defendants
now move for reconsideration of that denial. Their motion is
granted in part.

In their motion to dismiss, the Defendants made three principal
arguments: (1) "The PHL's Plain Language Requires that the Facility
be Adjudicated Liable Before the other Defendants can be Sued;" (2)
"Shorefront Realty, LLC and SentosaCare, LLC Should be Dismissed
Because Plaintiff Does Not Allege They Own the Facility;" and (3)
"The Absence of a Threat of Future Injury to Leroy Chow Precludes
Constitutional Standing to Pursue Injunctive Relief."

The Defendants' motion to reconsider makes the same arguments in
nearly identical language. The motion to reconsider is, therefore,
an attempt to relitigate issues already decided, Senior District
Judge Frederic Block notes.

The Defendants respond that reconsideration is, nonetheless,
appropriate because the Court "overlooked" their three principal
arguments. Judge Block says that this is not so. The September
Order explicitly states that "The Court and precedent disagree"
with Defendants' first argument, that the second argument "misreads
Plaintiff's complaint," and that the third argument "also fails"
because "where injunctive relief is authorized by statute, it is
enough if the statutory conditions are satisfied."

The Defendants should not mistake the Court's rejection of their
arguments for ignorance, Judge Block points out.

Because the Defendants fail to show that the Court overlooked any
of their arguments or the cases they cite, they can only obtain
reconsideration if the Court's analysis was marked by "clear error
or manifest injustice," Judge Block opines, citing CSX Transp.,
Inc., 70 F.3d at 257. Such error exists when the Court bases its
ruling on an erroneous view of the law (Virgin All. Airways, Ltd,
956 F.2d at 1254-55).

Judge Block insists that no such error is evident in the Court's
adjudication of the Defendants' first and second arguments. The
Defendants' "plain language" argument has never been accepted by a
New York State court, and New York courts have allowed plaintiffs
to pursue claims against individuals simultaneously with claims
against facilities. Thus, Judge Block holds, even if the
Defendants' plain language argument has some intuitive appeal, the
fact that two state courts have adopted positions inconsistent with
it means that rejecting it was not "clear error."

The Defendants' second argument likewise fails to justify
reconsideration, Judge Block finds. As explained in the September
Order, PHL Section 2808-a(1)'s "direct or in direct ownership
interest" language was written broadly to "insure that liability
and responsibility follow the capacity to make a profit." The
Plaintiff (1) directly alleges that Shorefront Operating, LLC and
SentosaCare, LLC have an ownership interest in the Facility; and
(2) plausibly alleges that both companies make a profit from the
Facility.

Under the PHL's broad standard, it was not "clear error" to hold
that these allegations establish at least an indirect and/or
beneficial ownership interest in the operation of the Facility,
Judge Block holds.

By contrast, the Defendants' constitutional standing argument
justifies reconsideration, Judge Block says. Upon review of the
relevant caselaw, the Court concludes that it improperly relied on
Barkley v. United Homes, LLC, 848 F. Supp. 2d 248, 274 (E.D.N.Y.
2012), aff'd sub nom. Barkley v. Olympia Mortg. Co., 557 F. App'x
22 (2d Cir. 2014), as amended (Jan. 30, 2014), to refute that
argument. In Thole v. U.S. Bank, NA., the United States Supreme
Court "rejected the argument that a plaintiff automatically
satisfies the injury-in fact requirement [of Article III standing]
whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports
to authorize that person to sue to vindicate that right."

Thus, post-Thole, Barkley cannot be read to support the proposition
that a plaintiff with a "statutory right . . . to sue" necessarily
possesses Article III standing, Judge Block holds. To the extent
that the Court relied on a contrary reading of the law, it clearly
erred.

Because Chow's statutory right to sue does not guarantee standing,
he must affirmatively establish standing for his injunctive claims,
Judge Block notes, citing Cacchillo v. Insured, Inc., 638 F.3d 401,
404 (2d Cir. 2011). Chow's Amended Complaint does not clearly do
so. Although Chow alleges violations of the PHL, past exposure to
illegal conduct does not in itself show a present case or
controversy regarding injunctive relief if unaccompanied by any
present adverse effects, the Judge opines.

Moreover, although the Court sympathizes with the Chow family's
loss, it must acknowledge that Leroy Chow's death means his past
maltreatment at the Facility is "unaccompanied by any present
adverse effects" and defeats any argument that Chow might
reasonably expect to again be subjected to the conduct alleged in
the complaint. It, therefore, appears that Chow lacks standing to
seek injunctive relief on behalf of his proposed class.

For these reasons, the Court finds that it clearly erred in
rejecting the Defendants' constitutional standing argument. The
Defendants' motion for reconsideration is granted.

Because the Court finds that the Plaintiff lacks standing to seek
injunctive relief, the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is
stricken. The Plaintiff's request for damages is not affected by
this Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated June 28,
2021, is available at https://tinyurl.com/2xnt8rr3 from
Leagle.com.

Jeremiah Lee Frei Pearson -- jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com --
Finkelstein, Blankenship, Frei Pearson & Garber, LLP, in White
Plains, New York, for the Plaintiff.

Lori Semlies -- lori.semlies@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson, Elser,
Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, LLP, in New York City, for the
Defendants.


SIGNATURE FLIGHT: $560K Settlement in Boddie Class Suit Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California grants the motion for approval of
representative action settlement in the lawsuit captioned MIKKI
BODDIE, Plaintiff v. SIGNATURE FLIGHT SUPPORT CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-03044-DMR (N.D. Cal.).

On April 10, 2019, Plaintiff Mikki Boddie filed a class action
complaint against Defendants Signature Flight Support LLC, formerly
known as Signature Flight Support Corporation, and Signature
Aviation USA, formerly known as BBA Aviation USA, Inc. (together,
"Signature" or "Defendants") alleging numerous wage and hour
violations under California law and a representative claim for
civil penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act
of 2004 ("PAGA").

The Defendants removed the action to this Court on June 3, 2019,
under the Class Action Fairness Act. The Plaintiff now seeks
approval of the settlement of the representative claim for
penalties under PAGA and requests an award of attorneys' fees.

The Court held a hearing on Jan. 28, 2021, and ordered the parties
to submit two rounds of supplemental materials and briefing, which
the parties timely filed.

Facts and Claims

The Defendants operate executive terminals for private airplanes.
Plaintiff has worked at Defendants' San Francisco facility as a
Customer Service Agent since 2012. The Plaintiff sued the
Defendants alleging wage and hour violations under California law.
She asserts the 10 claims in the FAC, including failure to provide
required meal periods, in violation of California Labor Code,
failure to provide required rest periods, failure to pay overtime
wages, unlawful business practices, in violation of California
Business & Professions Code, and civil penalties under PAGA.

The FAC alleges that the Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of
"all current and former non-exempt employees of Defendants in the
State of California at any time within the period beginning four
(4) years prior to the filing of this action and ending at the time
this action settles or proceeds to final judgment."

On Jan. 31, 2019, the Plaintiff gave written notice to California's
Labor and Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") of the specific
provisions of the California Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders alleged
to have been violated, in accordance with California Labor Code
section 2699.3.

Procedural History

The Plaintiff retained Matern Law Group ("MLG") in December 2018.
Counsel engaged in pre-litigation investigation of the claims,
including reviewing and analyzing information and documents
furnished by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed the complaint in
San Francisco Superior Court on April 10, 2019. The Defendants
removed the case to this Court on June 3, 2019. They subsequently
moved to strike and/or modify the Plaintiff's class allegations.
After the Plaintiff filed the FAC on June 24, 2019, the Court
denied the motion to strike as moot. The Defendants again moved to
strike and/or modify the class allegations in the FAC and the court
denied the motion on Aug. 5, 2019.

On April 6, 2020, the parties participated in a mediation before
Steve Serratore, Esq. Although the case did not settle on that
date, the parties continued to engage in discussions and settled
the case a few days later. The vast majority of the putative class
members (95.5%) signed arbitration agreements containing a class
action waiver. Therefore, the parties agreed to settle the claims
under PAGA that were or could have been pled in the FAC or
Plaintiff's written notice to the LWDA, along with Plaintiff's
individual claims. The parties further agreed that Plaintiff would
dismiss the putative class action claims (i.e., the non-PAGA
claims) without prejudice and would dismiss her individual claims
with prejudice.

On May 7, 2020, the parties outlined the terms of the settlement in
a Memorandum of Understanding, subject to a long form agreement.
They executed a Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Release of
Claims on Nov. 10, 2020, and submitted it to the LWDA the same
day.

The parties moved for approval of the settlement. The Court held a
hearing on Jan. 28, 2021, and ordered the parties to submit
supplemental materials and briefing in support of the motion,
including addressing the sufficiency of the settlement amount,
which the parties timely filed. The Plaintiff's analysis of the
proposed settlement was entirely cursory and did not sufficiently
address why the monetary settlement amount was reasonable.
Therefore, the Court granted the Plaintiff one final opportunity to
brief the issue, and ordered the Plaintiff to submit a brief that
addresses the sufficiency of the settlement amount given the
maximum potential value of the PAGA claims, including comparing the
settlement outcomes to those approved in similar cases by other
courts. The Plaintiff timely filed the ordered brief, to which the
Defendants filed a notice of non-opposition.

Terms of the Settlement

The complete terms of the settlement agreement are set forth in the
Stipulated Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims and the
February 11, 2021 Supplemental Amendment to Stipulated Settlement
Agreement and Release of Claims. The Agreement provides for a PAGA
settlement class of "Aggrieved Employees" comprised of "all current
and former hourly employees of Signature Flight Support LLC
formerly known as Signature Flight Support Corporation, who were
employed from January 31, 2018 to the date the Court approves this
settlement, or June 13, 2020, whichever is earlier ('PAGA
Period')." Based on information provided by defense counsel, there
are approximately 678 Aggrieved Employees.

Settlement Amount

Under the terms of the Agreement, Signature will pay a Maximum
Settlement Amount ("MSA") of $560,000 with no reversion. This
amount will be distributed among the Aggrieved Employees, the LWDA,
the settlement administrator, and the Plaintiff's counsel. The
agreement provides that the following amounts will be subtracted
from the MSA and that the remaining sum will be distributed to the
LWDA and Aggrieved Employees:

   -- Settlement administration costs in an amount up to $5,000.
      The Plaintiff's counsel states that the administrator's
      estimated costs are actually $4,250; and

   -- Plaintiff's counsel's fees in an amount of up to one-third
      of the MSA, or $186,666.67, and litigation costs of up to
      $16,000. According to counsel, the total current and
      projected litigation cost is $15,323.90.

The sum that remains after deducting the administration costs and
attorneys' fees and costs from the MSA will be designated as the
Net Settlement Amount ("NSA") and will be distributed to the LWDA
and Aggrieved Employees. If the Court approves these allocations,
the Net Settlement Amount will be $353,759.43. Pursuant to
California Labor Code section 2699(i), 75% of the NSA, or
$265,319.57, will be paid to the LWDA. The remaining 25%, or
$88,439.86, will be paid to the Aggrieved Employees on a pro rata
basis using their respective number of pay periods worked during
the PAGA Period. On average, each Aggrieved Employee will receive a
payment of $136.48 in PAGA penalties.

Injunctive Relief

The Agreement provides for injunctive relief in the form of a
modified rest break policy set forth in Signature's Team Member
Handbook for hourly employees in California. Within 30 days
following approval of the settlement, Signature agrees to modify
the rest break policy and to distribute the policy to its
employees.

The new policy clarifies that rest breaks must be duty-free and
will be in the middle of each work period where feasible, and that
employees are entitled to cool down periods in addition to rest
breaks. In addition to distributing the new policy, Signature will
post the policy "in a conspicuous location immediately below each
time clock where the hourly employees in California clock in and
out."

Settlement Administration

The parties propose that CPT Group, Inc., act as the settlement
administrator. Under the Agreement, within 10 business days after
the effective date of the settlement, the Defendants will provide
the settlement administrator with information about the Aggrieved
Employees, including their full names, last known mailing
addresses, last known telephone numbers, last known email addresses
if available, the sum total of their pay periods worked during the
PAGA Period, and Social Security numbers. This information will be
subject to a mutually-agreeable protective order governing
disclosure or dissemination of the information.

The checks for the PAGA payments will remain negotiable for 180
days. Any checks returned as undeliverable on or before the 180-day
deadline will be re-mailed to the Aggrieved Employees at any
forwarding address or address CPT is able to locate using a
skip-trace or other search using the individuals' names, addresses,
or Social Security numbers. Funds for checks returned as
undeliverable or uncashed within 180 days will be tendered to the
California State Controller--California Unclaimed Property Fund in
the names of the Aggrieved Employees to whom the checks were
issued.

Released and Dismissed Claims

All Aggrieved Employees will release any and all "PAGA Released
Claims" against Defendants that arose during the PAGA Period. The
Agreement defines "PAGA Released Claims" as "any and all claims
under PAGA that are pled in Plaintiff's FAC in the Action, or which
are pled in Plaintiff's written notice to the LWDA, or which could
have been pled under the PAGA based on the factual allegations" in
the FAC that arose during the PAGA Period, including "any
allegations concerning unpaid wages arising from Defendants' use of
improper rounding or grace period timekeeping policies."

As part of the Agreement, the Plaintiff agrees to dismiss her
individual claims with prejudice, and to dismiss the putative class
action claims without prejudice. The Plaintiff has separately
negotiated a settlement of her individual claims for $20,000 in
exchange for dismissal of those claims with prejudice.

Therefore, the only claims that will be released or barred are
Plaintiff's individual claims and the Plaintiff and the Aggrieved
Employees' PAGA Released Claims. As noted, counsel states that the
putative class action claims are being dismissed without prejudice
"because the vast majority of Class Members, 902 out of 945 (95.5
percent), signed arbitration agreements containing a class action
waiver."

Legal Standard

The Court finds the reasoning of these cases persuasive.
Accordingly, it will evaluate the proposed settlement in light of
the relevant factors under Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011,
1026 (9th Cir. 1998), as follows: 1) the strength of the
plaintiff's case; 2) the risk, expense, complexity, and likely
duration of further litigation; 3) the amount offered in
settlement; 4) the extent of discovery completed and the stage of
the proceedings; 5) the experience and views of counsel; and 6) the
presence of government participation.

The Court will also evaluate the proposed settlement in light of
PAGA's policy goals of benefiting the public by augmenting the
state's enforcement capabilities, encouraging compliance with Labor
Code provisions, and deterring noncompliance.

Discussion

In order to bring an action under PAGA, an aggrieved employee must
first provide written notice to the LWDA, as well as to the
employer. The Court finds that the Plaintiff has satisfied PAGA's
notice requirements.

Judge Ryu holds that the first Hanlon factor favors approval, as
courts have noted that "legal uncertainties at the time of
settlement" favor approval of a settlement, citing Browning v.
Yahoo! Inc., No. C04-01463 HRL, 2007 WL 4105971, at *10 (N.D. Cal.
Nov. 16, 2007).

As settlement provides a timely, certain recovery to the state and
to the Aggrieved Employees in this case, the second Hanlon factor
favors approval, Judge Ryu concludes. The Court also finds that the
third factor--the amount offered in settlement--favors approval, as
the monetary and injunctive relief is "genuine and meaningful" and
"consistent with the underlying purpose of the statute to benefit
the public."

The fourth factor, extent of discovery completed and stage of the
proceedings, favors approval, Judge Ryu holds. The Plaintiff's
counsel investigated the claims before filing suit, and the parties
have completed discovery, including review and analysis of time and
payroll records. The Plaintiff's counsel also retained an expert
statistician to prepare a damages model based on the time and
payroll records. Therefore, the parties had a clear understanding
of Defendants' potential liability and the risks of continued
litigation.

Judge Ryu also finds that the fifth factor weighs in favor of
approval, as the parties are represented by competent and
experienced counsel. The Plaintiff provided notice of the proposed
settlement to the LWDA in accordance with PAGA requirements. The
LWDA has not intervened or commented on the proposed settlement.
Accordingly, the sixth and final factor is neutral.

Five of the six Hanlon factors discussed favor approval; the sixth
is neutral. The Court concludes that the settlement is fair and
reasonable, and that it promotes the goals of PAGA.

Attorneys' Fees and Costs

As to the attorneys' fees and costs, PAGA provides that "any
employee who prevails in any action will be entitled to an award of
reasonable attorney's fees and costs."

Here, the parties agreed that the Defendants would not oppose the
Plaintiff's request for attorneys' fees in the amount of up to
one-third of the MSA, which is up to $186,666.67. The Plaintiff
requests that sum for attorneys' fees. Counsel's lodestar is
$162,587.50. The requested fee award amounts to a 1.15 multiplier.

Judge Ryu notes that the benchmark for a reasonable fee award is
25%, citing In re Bluetooth, 654 F.3d at 942. A court may depart
from this benchmark if it provides adequate explanation in the
record of any special circumstances justifying a departure. Judge
Ryu  opines that the Plaintiff does not discuss this authority,
citing only cases from state court in which courts approved
attorneys' fees of one-third of a PAGA settlement fund.

The Court concludes that the Plaintiff has not established that an
upward departure from the 25% benchmark is warranted in this case.
The Plaintiff describes no "special circumstances" justifying such
a departure. While class counsel conducted the case on a contingent
fee basis and assumed all of the financial risk of litigation,
counsel does not set forth any significant or unusual risks posed
by the litigation. Moreover, based on the record before the Court,
it does not appear that the case was litigated particularly
vigorously; counsel performed just under 200 hours of work total on
the case.

Accordingly, an award of 25% of the common fund is appropriate and
warranted here, Judge Ryu rules. The Court awards the Plaintiff's
attorneys' fees in the amount of $140,000.

As to costs, the Agreement provides that the Plaintiff may be
reimbursed for litigation costs up to $16,000. The Plaintiff's
counsel states that the current costs total $14,363.90. He also
projects future costs of $960.00 for "approval hearing expenses,"
including airfare, lodging, ground transportation, and parking.

As the Court conducted the hearing on this matter by Zoom
teleconference, travel expenses are not justified. The Court finds
that the remaining costs are justified and appropriate, and awards
the Plaintiff $14,363.00 in costs.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the Plaintiff's motion for approval of a
representative action settlement is granted. The Plaintiff's
request for an award of attorneys' fees and costs is granted in
part.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 28, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/uxhyww from Leagle.com.


SONY MUSIC: Dozens of Ex-Employees May Join Suit Over Work Culture
------------------------------------------------------------------
digitalmusicnews.com reports that a Sydney-based law firm says it
has been inundated with requests for potential legal action against
Sony Music Australia.

The news of a possible class-action lawsuit follows news of CEO
Denis Handlin leaving last month. Sony Music Australia made the
announcement "effective immediately" through an internal email to
staff. The dismissal follows several weeks of allegations
concerning 'toxic' work culture at the company. Sony Music New York
is investigating those allegations.

The report was based on interviews with more than 20 former
employees at Sony Music. It included allegations of sexual
harassment at work events, alcohol abuse, and unfair treatment of
women. The report did not accuse Handlin of sexual harassment, but
many ex-employees were critical of his handling of the work
environment and allowing toxic culture to fester.

Law firm MacDougall and Hydes has told local Australian media that
she has been approached by several former employees. Some are
seeking representation in the Sony Music New York investigation
into its Australian operations. Others are considering taking
possible legal action against Sony Music Australia.

"I have been approached by a number of women who were seeking legal
advice in relation to claims of bullying and harassment during
their time at Sony Music Australia," Lauren MacDougall told the
press. "I would encourage any other women or men to come forward.
Depending on how many people come forward and what they have to
say, there is the potential of a class action."

"Class actions are not straightforward, and a decision to institute
one depends on many factors. The first step is to speak to the
individuals to ascertain what their complaint is and what their
expectations are. At this time, it is simply far too soon to
confirm the position."

Denis Handlin was Sony Music's longest-serving employee until his
dismissal. He spent more than 50 years at the label, overseeing its
Australia and New Zealand music operations.

The complaints about its Australian office were about the workplace
culture rather than specific individuals. But those complaints span
more than two decades. Handlin was appointed chairman and CEO of
Sony Music Australia and New Zealand in 2004. [GN]


SPITERI CONSTRUCTION: Martinez Sues Over Workers' Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
ARISTOTELES VEGA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Spiteri Construction CORP. (D/B/A Spiteri
Construction CORP.), Michael Spiteri and Loreta Spiteri, Case No.
1:21-cv-05955 (S.D.N.Y., July 12, 2021) seeks to recover for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs contend that they worked for the Defendants in
excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage,
overtime and spread of hours compensation for the hours that they
worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay them
appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of
pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants
failed to pay them the required "spread of hours" pay for any day
in which he has had to work over 10 hours a day, Plaintiffs add.

The Plaintiff Vega was employed as a construction worker at the
construction corporation located at 1610 York Ave., New York.

The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a construction
company, located at 1610 York Ave., New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

STABLE ROAD: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP filed a class action seeking to
represent purchasers of Stable Road Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ:SRAC;
SRACW; SRACU) securities during the period between October 7, 2020
and July 13, 2021 (the "Class Period"). The Stable Road class
action lawsuit was filed in the Central District of California and
is captioned Jensen v. Stable Road Acquisition Corp., No.
21-cv-05744. The Stable Road class action lawsuit charges Stable
Road, its sponsor SRC-NI Holdings, LLC, and certain of its
executives, along with Momentus Inc. and its former CEO, with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Stable Road class action lawsuit, please provide
your information by clicking here. You can also contact attorney
Brian Cochran of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via
e-mail at bcochran@rgrdlaw.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the
Stable Road class action lawsuit must be filed with the court no
later than September 13, 2021.

The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud. You can view a copy of the complaint by
clicking here.

CASE ALLEGATIONS: Stable Road was launched as a blank check
company, also known as a special purpose acquisition company or
"SPAC." On October 7, 2020, Stable Road and Momentus Inc. - a
private commercial space company - issued a joint press release
announcing that Stable Road had agreed to acquire Momentus in a
proposed merger, subject to shareholder approval. The press release
stated that the merger would "create the first publicly traded
space infrastructure company at the forefront of the new space
economy."

The Stable Road class action lawsuit alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, defendants misrepresented and failed to disclose
adverse facts about Momentus's business, operations, and prospects
and Stable Road's due diligence activities in connection with the
merger, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them, as follows: (a) Momentus's 2019 test of its key technology, a
water plasma thruster, had failed to meet Momentus's own public and
internal pre-launch criteria for success, and was conducted on a
prototype that was not designed to generate commercially
significant amounts of thrust; (b) the U.S. government had conveyed
that it considered Momentus's CEO, defendant Mikhail Kokorich, a
national security threat, which jeopardized Kokorich's continued
leadership of Momentus and Momentus's launch schedule and business
prospects; (c) consequently, the revenue projections and business
and operational plans provided to investors regarding Momentus and
the commercial viability and timeline of its products were
materially false and misleading and lacked a reasonable basis in
fact; and (d) Stable Road had failed to conduct appropriate due
diligence of Momentus and its business operations and defendants
had materially misrepresented the due diligence activities being
conducted by Stable Road executives and its sponsor in connection
with the merger.

On January 25, 2021, Momentus announced that defendant Kokorich had
resigned as Momentus's CEO "in an effort to expedite the resolution
of U.S. government national security and foreign ownership concerns
surrounding the Company." On this news, the price of Stable Road
Class A stock fell 19% over three trading days, to close at $20.10
per share on January 27, 2021.

Then, on July 13, 2021, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") announced charges against Stable Road, its CEO, defendant
Brian Kabot, SRC-NI Holdings, Momentus, and defendant Kokorich for
making "misleading claims about Momentus's technology and about
national security risks associated with Kokorich." The release,
among other things, stated that all parties other than defendant
Kokorich had settled the charges against them for $8 million in
total, while the case against defendant Kokorich continued. Also on
July 13, 2021, the SEC publicized a cease-and-desist order and
complaint against defendant Kokorich which detailed defendants'
scheme to defraud investors in connection with the merger. On this
news, the price of Stable Road Class A stock fell an additional
10%, further damaging investors.

Robbins Geller has launched a dedicated SPAC Task Force to protect
investors in blank check companies and seek redress for corporate
malfeasance. Comprised of experienced litigators, investigators,
and forensic accountants, the SPAC Task Force is dedicated to
rooting out and prosecuting fraud on behalf of injured SPAC
investors. The rise in blank check financing poses unique risks to
investors. Robbins Geller's SPAC Task Force represents the vanguard
of ensuring integrity, honesty, and justice in this rapidly
developing investment arena.

THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased Stable Road
securities during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead
plaintiff in the Stable Road class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff
is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the
relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and
adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of
all other class members in directing the Stable Road class action
lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to
litigate the Stable Road class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Stable
Road class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP: With 200 lawyers in 9
offices nationwide, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is the largest
U.S. law firm representing investors in securities class actions.
Robbins Geller attorneys have obtained many of the largest
shareholder recoveries in history, including the largest securities
class action recovery ever - $7.2 billion - in In re Enron Corp.
Sec. Litig. The 2020 ISS Securities Class Action Services Top 50
Report ranked Robbins Geller first for recovering $1.6 billion for
investors last year, more than double the amount recovered by any
other securities plaintiffs' firm. Please visit
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/firm.html for or more information. [GN]

STANFORD FEDERAL: Trigueros Suit Remanded to Santa Clara Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand the
lawsuit styled JOCELYN TRIGUEROS, Plaintiff v. STANFORD FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 21-cv-01079-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

The Court remands the action to the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Santa Clara.

Plaintiff Jocelyn Trigueros brings this putative class action
against her former employer, Defendant Stanford Federal Credit
Union, for violations of California wage and hour laws. The
Defendant removed the action to federal court under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA"). Before the Court is the
Plaintiff's motion to remand for lack of jurisdiction under CAFA.

District Judge Beth Labson Freeman notes that this matter is
suitable for disposition without oral argument and, thus, the
hearing set for Sept. 2, 2021, is vacated, and the matter is
submitted for decision.

Plaintiff Jocelyn Trigueros was an hourly paid, non-exempt employee
of Defendant from April 2019 to February 2020. The Plaintiff brings
this action on behalf of a purported class including "all current
and former hourly-paid or non-exempt employees of Defendant within
the State of California at any time during the period from July 17,
2016, to final judgment."

The Plaintiff primarily alleges that the Defendant knowingly failed
to pay employees for overtime work, provide required rest and meal
periods, pay penalty and payment for hours worked during the
required meal and rest periods, pay wages owed to employees when
they were discharged, and provide accurate wage statements. The
Complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought.

On Feb. 11, 2021, the Defendant removed the action to this Court,
claiming this Court had diversity jurisdiction under CAFA because
"(i) diversity of citizenship exists between at least one putative
class member and one Defendant; (ii) the aggregate number of
putative class members in all proposed classes is 100 or greater;
and (iii) the amount placed in controversy by the Complaint
exceeds, in the aggregate, $5 million, exclusive of interest and
costs."

The Plaintiff filed this remand motion on March 15, 2021.

The Plaintiff's motion to remand disputes the Defendant's arguments
regarding the diversity and amount in controversy requirements for
proper removal under CAFA. She also argues both the "local
controversy" and "home state" exceptions to CAFA jurisdiction apply
to this case. The motion further requests jurisdictional discovery
related to the CAFA exceptions. Finally, she seeks sanctions
against the Defendant.

Judge Freeman notes that the Defendant must prove the following
criteria by a preponderance of the evidence to meet its burden of
demonstrating this Court's jurisdiction under CAFA: (1) the
putative class contains at least 100 members; (2) at least one
plaintiff is diverse in citizenship from any defendant (i.e.,
minimal diversity); and (3) the aggregate amount in controversy is
greater than $5,000,000. The Plaintiff only challenges the second
two criterion arguing that the Defendant has not and cannot prove
it has met the diversity and amount in controversy requirements.

The Court finds that the Defendant has failed to meet its burden
regarding the amount in controversy. Because the motion must be
granted on this basis alone, the Court need not reach the
Defendant's arguments regarding CAFA diversity nor the Plaintiff's
arguments regarding CAFA exceptions and jurisdictional discovery.

The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant has not provided sufficient
evidence justifying its revised calculations alleging an amount in
controversy of $6,154,514.50, and that the Defendant's calculations
included damages outside the scope of the relevant statutes.

The Court finds that the Defendant's revised estimation does not
satisfy CAFA's amount in controversy requirement.

The Court adds $487,073.03 for unpaid overtime and $847,629.60 for
waiting time penalties and multiplies that total ($1,334,702.63) by
25% to arrive at an attorneys' fees estimate of $333,675.66. Adding
the estimated meal and rest period penalties ($2,727,608.97),
unpaid overtime penalties ($487,073.03), waiting time penalties
($847,629.60) and attorneys' fees ($333,675.66) results in a total
of $4,395,987.26 in controversy. As a result, the Defendant has
failed to satisfy the $5 million CAFA requirement.

For these reasons, the Plaintiff's motion to remand is granted.

Request for Sanctions

The Plaintiff requests monetary sanctions on the basis that the
Defendant's motion is meritless.

The Court first notes that the Plaintiff's request for sanctions is
improper, as motions for sanctions must be separately filed in this
District. However, even if this request were properly brought, it
would not be successful. The Plaintiff alleges that she "made a
reasonable and good faith effort to meet and confer to resolve the
instant discovery dispute informally without cooperation from
Defendant." The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's removal was
meritless and, as a result, she asks the Court to "award monetary
sanctions of no less than $9,100.00 against Defendant and its
counsel of record Jackson Lewis P.C., jointly and severally, for
attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff in connection with
this Motion, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule
11 and 28 U.S. Code Section 1927."

The Court says it is not persuaded to order any such sanctions. For
these reasons, the Plaintiff's request for sanctions is denied.

Order

For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion to
remand. Accordingly, the Court remands the case. The Clerk will
remand this action to the Superior Court of California for the
County of Santa Clara and close the case.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated June 28, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/avrxsyvr from Leagle.com.


SYMETRA LIFE: Trial Date in Davis Suit Set for Sept. 11
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS E. DAVIS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:21-cv-00533-RSL (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Robert S. Lasnik entered a minute order
setting trial date and related dates:

   -- TRIAL DATE:                            September 11, 2023

   -- Deadline for joining
      additional parties:                    August 9, 2021

   -- Motion for class                       December 15, 2022
      certification due and
      noted on the Court’s calendar
      for the fifth Friday
      thereafter December 15, 2022:

   -- Deadline for amending                  January 14, 2023
      pleadings January 14, 2023:

   -- Reports from expert witnesses          March 15, 2023
      under FRCP 26(a)(2) due
      March 15, 2023:

   -- All motions related to                 May 14, 2023
      discovery must be noted
      on the motion calendar
      no later than the Friday
      before discovery closes
      pursuant to LCR 7(d) or
      LCR 37(a)(2):

   -- Discovery completed by                 April 28, 2023
      May 14, 2023:

   -- Settlement conference held             June 13, 2023
      no later than April 28, 2023:

   -- All dispositive motions                June 13, 2023
      must be filed by and
      noted on the motion
      calendar  no later than
      the fourth Friday thereafter:


   -- All motions in limine must            July 23, 2023
      be filed by and noted on
      the motion calendar no
      earlier than the second
      Friday thereafter.

   -- Replies will be accepted             July 23, 2023

   -- Agreed pretrial order due            August 10, 2023

   -- Trial briefs, proposed voir          September 6, 2023
      dire questions, proposed
      jury instructions, and
      trial exhibits due

      Length of Trial: 10 days            Jury

A copy of the Court's order dated July 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UYR0S6 at no extra charge.[CC]

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY: Stevez Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Syracuse University.
The case is styled as Arturo Stevez, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Syracuse University, Case No.
1:21-cv-06172 (S.D.N.Y., July 19, 2021).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Syracuse University -- https://www.syracuse.edu/ -- founded in 1870
and comprised of thirteen schools and colleges, is a private
research university in the heart of New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 E. 18th Street, Suite Phr
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: (212) 228-9795
          Email: michael@gottlieb.legal


TALISMAN ENERGY: Provost Umphrey Finalizes $24MM Cash Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP on July 13 disclosed that A federal
judge has signed an order distributing over $24 million to royalty
owners and the lawyers that represented them in a six-year battle
over improperly paid oil and gas royalties.

Judge Keith P. Ellison in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, signed the final motion and
distribution order on July 2.

Judge Ellison approved the settlement in May during a fairness
hearing, confirming a 100 percent payout to class members and $9
million in attorney fees. The hearing was the final step in a
settlement process with Repsol Oil and Gas USA, LLC (formerly
Talisman Energy USA), for claims that the company improperly
allocated production volumes and underpaid owners for wells
operated in the Eagle Ford Shale basin in South Texas.

"We are one step closer to making things right for over 2,700
individual royalty owners systematically underpaid for over three
years," said Provost Umphrey Law Firm attorney Bryan Blevins. "It
has been a long battle but one that needed to be fought."

Along with Mr. Blevins, Provost Umphrey attorney Michael Hamilton
represents plaintiffs Rayanne Regmund Chesser, Gloria Janssen and
others in the lawsuit, which includes royalty owners in Texas and
across the nation. According to the lawsuit, the company failed to
report, account and make royalty payments based on the terms of
their lease agreements from Jan. 1, 2013, to June 1, 2016. In
addition, the company altered production volumes by as much as 30
percent and paid royalties based on estimated sales instead of the
actual volume of oil or gas sold, according to the claims.

Talisman entered the Texas oil and gas market in a joint venture
with Statoil (now Equinor) in 2010. In July 2013, a revised
agreement split the well operations between the two companies.
Royalty owners immediately noticed a significant difference in
reported production volumes from Talisman compared to Statoil.

Repsol Oil and Gas USA, LLC is a subsidiary of Repsol, SA, an
energy and petrochemical company based in Madrid, Spain. Repsol
acquired Talisman Energy USA in 2015.

The case is Rayanne Regmund Chesser, et al. v. Talisman Energy USA
INC., Class Action No. 4:16-cv-02960 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas.

                About Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP

For over 50 years, our firm's mission has remained to seek justice
for those in need. Our attorneys fight for clients nationwide with
offices in Beaumont, Texas, and Nashville, Tennessee. We continue
to be one of the most successful trial law firms in the nation by
remaining Hard-Working Lawyers for Hard-Working People. To learn
more, visit http://www.provostumphrey.com.[GN]


TATE & KIRLIN: Faces Dauer Suit Over Illegal Debt Collection Acts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHANA DAUER, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers, Plaintiff v. TATE & KIRLIN ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:21-cv-03864 (E.D.N.Y., July 9, 2021) is a class action
complaint brought against the Defendant for its alleged illegal
collection practices that violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant began to attempt to
collect an alleged consumer debt from the Plaintiff by sending her
may prerecorded messages on her answering machine on numerous
occasions. However, the callers failed to identify themselves as
debt collectors. By failing to indicate that the messages were from
a debt collector and for not meaningfully disclosing the callers'
identity, the Defendant allegedly violated 15 U.S.C. Sections
1692d(6), 1692e, 1692e(10) and 1692e9(11).

As a result of the Defendant's unfair, abusive and deceptive debt
collection practices, the Plaintiff has suffered actual harm, says
the suit. Thus, the Plaintiff seeks statutory and actual damages,
attorney fees, litigation expenses and costs, and other relief as
the Court deems appropriate and just under the circumstances.

Tate & Kirlin Associates, Inc. is a debt collector. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam J. Fishbein, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Tel: (516) 668-6945
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com

TEVA BRANDED: Wilkinson Files Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Teva Branded
Pharmaceutical Products R&D, INC., et al. The case is styled as
Julia Wilkinson, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. TEVA BRANDED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS R&D,
INC., TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., ORTHO-MCNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC, JANSSEN RESEARCH &
DEVELOPMENT LLC, ALZA CORPORATION, JANSSEN ORTHO LLC, JOHNSON &
JOHNSON, Case No. 2:21-cv-13816 (D.N.J., July 19, 2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Personal Injury: Health
Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury for Product Liability.

Teva Pharmaceutical -- https://www.tevapharm.com/ -- is a global
leader in the Pharmaceutical Industries--developing, producing and
marketing affordable, high-quality generic drugs and specialty
pharmaceuticals.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melanie H. Muhlstock, Esq.
          PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
          6 Harbor Park Drive
          Port Washington, NY 11050
          Phone: (516) 466-6500
          Email: mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com


TEXAS: Appeals Court Rejects Suit Over Baseball Cheating Scandal
----------------------------------------------------------------
courthousenews.com reports that a Texas appeals court ruled that a
class action against the Houston Astros brought by fans upset over
a signal-stealing scandal must be dismissed because they have no
legal basis to recover damages.

The lawsuit, brought in February 2020, alleged the team overcharged
fans for season tickets for the 2017 through 2020 seasons because
its players were secretly stealing pitch signs, as confirmed by a
Major League Baseball investigation.

The investigation revealed Astros players watched a live feed from
a camera mounted in centerfield showing the other teams' catchers
signing to pitchers and then banged on a trash can with a bat to
tip

The plaintiffs argued the team was "intentionally deceiving" season
ticket holders, and had they known about the sign-stealing scheme,
they never would have purchased the tickets or other merchandise.

The Astros moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the plaintiffs
weren't entitled to watch a game free from MLB rule violations and
couldn't bring a lawsuit just because they were disappointed over
how the team played the game.

The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, but Texas' 14th Court
of Appeals vacated the ruling and ordered the lower court to toss
the case.

"It is clear that the plaintiffs' claims arise from the way the
Astros' played the game and the plaintiffs' 'embarrassment,
disappointment, shame, and disgrace' of the sign-stealing scandal
despite their attempts to couch their claims in terms of
off-the-field misrepresentations," the ruling states.

The court pointed to a 2020 decision from the Philadelphia-based
Third Circuit that addressed a similar case in which a New York
Jets season ticketholder sued the New England Patriots and its head
coach Bill Belichick after it was discovered the Patriots were
secretly videotaping the signals of their opponents in 2007.

In that case, the federal appeals court said the issue boiled down
to whether a ticketholder has the right "to see an 'honest' game
played in compliance with the fundamental rules of the NFL itself,"
the Texas court noted. The Third Circuit ultimately held that
ticketholders had, at best, a contractual right to enter the
stadium and have a seat to watch the game.

Like in the Jets case, the Texas court ruled that because the
Astros fans did not allege being blocked from entering the stadium
and watching the baseball game, they did not lose any legally
protected right.

"In Texas, a ticket to a baseball game is a revocable license," the
ruling states. "The plaintiffs have not asserted that they were
denied the right of entry into Minute Maid Park or to sit in the
seats for which they purchased tickets."

Attorneys for the ticketholders did not immediately return a
request for comment. [GN]

TRANSUNION LLC: Sheppard Mullin Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lundholm, Esq., and Anna McLean, Esq., of Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, inn an article for JDSupra, report that the
Supreme Court further limited consumer lawsuits in TransUnion, LLC
v. Ramirez, siding with credit reporting agency TransUnion in a 5-4
decision holding that thousands of consumers improperly flagged as
potential terrorists do not have standing to sue the company for
damages. TransUnion expands upon Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 2578 U.S.
330, 340 (2016) in limiting standing under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) and Article III to plaintiffs who have
suffered a concrete harm, not just the violation of a statutory
right. As a practical matter, TransUnion significantly narrows
plaintiffs' ability to assert claims in federal court on behalf of
broad classes without proving a concrete injury to each member.

Class representative Sergio Ramirez sued TransUnion under the FCRA
for falsely flagging him as a part of a list of terrorists, drug
traffickers, and other serious criminals issued by the Treasury
Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). Ramirez
learned TransUnion had flagged him as a part of the OFAC list when
he was denied credit in applying for a car loan. The district court
certified a class of 8,185 individuals whose credit files also
contained misleading OFAC alerts. Of the 8,185 class members, 1,853
class members, like Ramirez, had their credit reports disseminated
to third parties, while the credit files of the remaining 6,332
class members were never disclosed to third parties. A jury awarded
the class more than $60 million in damages. The 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals upheld the District Court's award of statutory
damages, but reduced the amount of punitive damages.

In an opinion authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme
Court reversed the 9th Circuit's decision. The 5-justice majority
found that, while 1,853 class members who had their credit reports
disclosed to third parties suffered a concrete harm, the remaining
class members who did not have their credit reports provided to a
third party suffered no concrete harm or a harm that was too
speculative to support standing. An injury is "concrete" only if it
is closely related to "a harm traditionally recognized as providing
a basis for a lawsuit in American courts[.]" The Court found that,
for Ramirez and the subset of 1,853 class members, their
reputational harm from the false OFAC flag was closely related to
defamation. But the remaining 6,332 class members did not suffer a
harm traditionally recognized as providing a basis for suit.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote that these class members' "harm is roughly
the same, legally speaking, as if someone wrote a defamatory letter
and then stored it in her desk drawer. A letter that is not sent
does not harm anyone, no matter how insulting the letter is. So too
here."

The decision may have the largest impact in the context of class
action litigation. As the majority made clear, "[e]very class
member must have Article III standing in order to recover
individual damages." In cases where injuries are not easily
quantified or are based purely on statutory violations, plaintiffs'
lawyers may have a harder time certifying a class or may be forced
to narrow the class definition to encompass only class members who
have a present, "concrete" injury.

The Court's decision may impact where plaintiffs decide to bring
suit, as Justice Clarence Thomas suggested in a footnote in his
dissent. State courts, which are not bound by federal rules of
justiciability even when they address issues of federal law, may be
a more appealing forum for class actions based on federal statutory
violations where concurrent jurisdiction applies. Whether this will
ultimately result in more class action lawsuits being brought in
state instead of federal court remains to be seen. [GN]

TRI-STATE INSURANCE: La Cocina Appeals Insurance Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff La Cocina de Oaxaca, LLC filed an appeal from a court
ruling entered in the lawsuit styled LA COCINA DE OAXACA LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. TRI-STATE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA, Defendant,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01176-BJR, in the U.S. District Court for Western
Washington, Seattle.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 24, 2020, the
lawsuit is a class action against the Defendant for breach of
contract.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated Tri-State Insurance policyholders, alleges that the
Defendant has denied coverage for the direct physical losses and/or
damages that it suffered following the closure of its restaurant in
compliance with Washington Governor Jay Inslee's Proclamations and
Orders to combat COVID-19. The insurance policy that the Plaintiff
and the Class purchased from the Defendant is an all-risk policy,
which offers Business Income Coverage, Extended Business Income
Coverage, Extra Expense Coverage, and Civil Authority Coverage. The
Defendant's denial of coverage for the Plaintiff's business losses
constitutes a breach of contract, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff now seeks a review of the Court's Order and Judgment
dated May 28, 2021, granting Defendant's motion to dismiss the case
with prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned as La Cocina de Oaxaca, LLC v.
Tri-State Insurance Company, Case No. 21-35493, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on June 24,
2021.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant La Cocina de Oaxaca, LLC Mediation Questionnaire
was due July 1, 2021;

   -- Appellant La Cocina de Oaxaca, LLC opening brief is due on
August 23, 2021;

   -- Appellee Tri-State Insurance Company of Minnesota answering
brief is due on September 22, 2021; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service
of the answering brief.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants SEATTLE SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA, DBA Seattle
Symphony, and BH MUSIC CENTER are represented by:

          Ian S. Birk, Esq.
          Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
          Irene M. Hecht, Esq.
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Amy Williams-Derry, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623-1900
          E-mail: ibirk@kellerrohrback.com
                  gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
                  ihecht@kellerrohrback.com
                  lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com   

Defendant-Appellee TRI-STATE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MINNESOTA is
represented by:

          Darlene Alt, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          227 West Monroe Street, Suite 4700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 577-1300
          E-mail: dalt@steptoe.com  

               - and -

          John Andrew Bennett, Esq.
          Stuart Duncan Jones, Esq.
          BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY
          One SW Columbia Street, Suite 800
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 499-4418
          E-mail: john.bennett@bullivant.com
                  stuart.jones@bullivant.com

TWININGS NORTH AMERICA: Mangels Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Twinings North
America, Inc. The case is styled as Patricia Mangels, on belhalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Twinings North
America, Inc., Case No. 2:21-cv-04138-WJE (W.D. Mo., July 19,
2021).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Twinings North America, Inc. -- https://twiningsusa.com/ -- imports
and distributes tea and hot beverage products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tim Eugene Dollar, Esq.
          DOLLAR, BURNS, BECKER & HERSHEWE, L.C.
          1100 Main Street, Ste. 2600
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Phone: (816) 876-2600
          Fax: (816) 221-8763
          Email: timd@dollar-law.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: N.Z. Drivers File Suit Over Contractor Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Corlett, writing for The Guardian, reports that New Zealand
Uber drivers are taking the global ride-share company to court, in
the hopes of being legally determined as employees instead of
contractors.

It is the latest in a string of cases taken against the company and
other ride-share apps, and the second such case in New Zealand.

Two unions, First Union and E Tu, will take the class action to the
Employment Court on behalf of more than 20 drivers. They hope to
override a legal precedent set in the court last year, which ruled
a driver was not an employee.

An Uber driver's rate is set by Uber, but First Union's Anita
Rosentreter said the judge in last year's decision concluded that
the driver had control over their wages because they could, in
theory, be paid less, or could improve the profitability of their
business through adopting cheaper business costs - such as a phone
plan.

"I find it unfathomable that someone thinks that is a compelling
argument," said Rosentreter.

The Employment Relations Act 2000 requires that the intention of
the parties, and how an employment relationship acts in practice,
must be considered. Merely stating in a contract that a person is a
contractor does not mean it will automatically pass the legal
test.

Rosentreter said Uber ultimately has control over how its business
is carried out and how much drivers are paid for each ride. She
said the drivers are out there representing Uber's brand, not their
own, meaning they should be deemed as employees, despite signing on
as independent contractors.

"The court has to look at the reality of the way drivers are
working and the relationship they have with the company and decide
if that looks more like an employment relationship than the
relationship of a contractor or a client," Rosentreter said.

The legal challenge is part of a two-pronged attempt to seek better
conditions and security for Uber and food-delivery drivers.

The unions delivered a report titled Gig Work in Aotearoa to the
minister for workplace relations and safety, Michael Wood, at
Parliament on July 14, outlining legal grey areas for gig-workers
in employment law, their lack of employment security, and worrying
trends in their rates of pay.

As self-employed contractors, the drivers are being deprived of
their minimum employment entitlements, including the minimum wage,
holiday pay, sick leave and legal recourse for unjustified
dismissals, the report said.

Fifty-three percent of the respondents said they earned less than
the minimum hourly wage after expenses.

"We have an opportunity in Aotearoa to get ahead of the worst
excesses of the gig economy and learn from ample overseas evidence
that employment laws need to be fit for purpose, not prone to
exploitation by companies like Uber," Rosentreter said.

A spokesperson for Uber New Zealand said in a statement that Uber
is "focused on continuing to look at how we can improve the quality
of on-demand work, while retaining the two key things that make it
unique compared to traditional forms of work - low barriers to
earning income, and the flexibility to work when you want, where
you want, for as long as you want, and you can stop at any time."

It said last year's Employment Court ruling was consistent with
multiple rulings in Australia and overseas. [GN]

UBS GROUP: Forex Rigging Class Action Mulled in London Courts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Wu, writing for Business Insider, reports that allegations of
currency-trade manipulation are bubbling up into a potential
class-action suit against several big banks, according to a report
from the Financial Times.

Two high-powered legal teams are jostling to bring a collective
action against the banks in London courts, pursuing a US-style
class-action strategy that could lead to huge payouts. Under a 2015
UK law, class-action suits can be pursued if there are suspected
violations of competition law in play, according to the FT.

The banks, which include UBS, Barclays, Citibank, and JPMorgan, are
accused of colluding to rig prices in the $6 trillion
foreign-exchange market between 2007 and 2013. Traders allegedly
coordinated currency bets in online chat rooms, exchanging
information on customer orders and prices.

In 2019, the banks coughed up over EUR1 billion in fines to the
European Commission, following on similar fines paid to US, UK, and
Swiss regulators. In sum, banks have paid north of $12 billion in
fines over the FX-rigging scandal, according to the FT.

UBS initially escaped the 2019 European fines by disclosing its
misconduct early, but the regulatory action was effectively an
"open invitation for parties who may have been impacted by these
cartels to sue these banks," as one lawyer told the BBC at the
time.

That prediction now seems prescient as the two competing
class-action cases are being bankrolled by litigation financiers
who buy equity in the outcome of a case.

Separately, HSBC is facing allegations from a former client of FX
fraud in front of London's High Court. HSBC denies the claims. [GN]

UNILEVER MANUFACTURING: Fails to Provide Overtime Pay, Perez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DULCE PEREZ; individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved
employees v. UNILEVER MANUFACTURING, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 21STCV25707 (Cal.s Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
July 13, 2021) is a Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 action
brought against Unilever to recover penalties, and all other
available relief on behalf of Plaintiff and all other aggrieved
employees who suffered Labor Code violations.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants failed to provide
suitable seats in the workplace, failed to provide suitable
temperature in the workplace, and failed to pay overtime.

Unilever manufactures personal care products. The Company offers,
laundry detergents, shampoos, soaps, fragrances, and body
washes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan I. Schimmel, Esq.
          Michael W. Parks, Esq.
          Arya Rhodes, Esq.
          Inga Orbeli, Esq.
          SCHIMMEL & PARKS, APLC
          15303 Ventura Blvd., Suite 650
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 464-5061
          Facsimile: (818) 464-5091

UNITED STATES: Seeks to Stay Faust Case Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADAM P. FAUST, et al., v.
THOMAS J. VILSACK, in his official capacity as Secretary of
Agriculture, et al., Case No. 21-cv-548-WCG (E.D. Wisc.), the
Defendants Thomas J. Vilsack and Zach Ducheneaux ask the Court to
stay the proceedings in this case until final resolution of the
proceedings in related litigation that has been certified as a
class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2).

The Plaintiffs filed this action to challenge the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's (USDA) implementation of Section 1005 of the
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) on equal protection
grounds. The Plaintiffs' lawsuit is not the only challenge to
Section 1005. There are currently twelve such lawsuits pending
before courts around the country, and the Defendants have been
preliminarily enjoined on a nationwide basis from disbursing
Section 1005 funds pending resolution of related litigation.

In light of the recent grant of class certification in the
first-filed challenge to Section 1005, the Defendants respectfully
request a stay of this case. Specifically, the Northern District of
Texas certified two classes of farmers and ranchers bringing an
equal protection challenge to Section 1005 like that Plaintiffs
bring here. See Order on Class Cert. & PI, Miller v. Vilsack,
4:21-cv-595 (N.D. Tex.).

The United States Department of Agriculture, also known as the
Agriculture Department, is the federal executive department
responsible for developing and executing federal laws related to
farming, forestry, rural economic development, and food.

Mr. Thomas J. Vilsack is the Secretary of Agriculture. Mr. Zach
Ducheneaux is the Administrator of the Farm Service Agency.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated July 12, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3hQkhav at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian M. Boynton, Esq.
          Lesley Farby, Esq.
          Emily Newton, Esq.
          Kyla M. Snow, Esq.
          UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          CIVIL DIVISION, FEDERAL PROGRAMS BRANCH
          1100 L Street, NW
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 305-8356
          Facsimile: (202) 616-8460
          E-mail: emily.s.newton@usdoj.gov

UNUM GROUP: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Pittman Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled CYNTHIA PITTMAN, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v.
UNUM GROUP, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 20-5710 (6th
Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
affirms the dismissal of the Plaintiff's securities case.

Unum Group is an insurance company that thought it could profit
from the sale of "long-term-care" (LTC) policies. These policies
provide support for individuals as they age, often by paying for
nursing-home and other care. But Unum's calculations turned out to
be off, and the policies generated large losses. Unum announced
that it had to divert some of its cash into the reserve account
used to fund these policies. The stock price fell, and investors
sued. They alleged that the Company misled them in violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In a thorough opinion, the
district court analyzed the Plaintiffs' allegations and held that
they were insufficient to state a claim for securities fraud.

In 2014, Unum concluded that its LTC reserves were inadequate. So
it increased them by $698 million. It also updated its reserve
assumptions, hoping to avoid future increases. When Unum did so, it
informed investors that it was going to use a formula called an
"interest-adjusted loss ratio" to monitor the reserves. Unum
publicly released its loss ratio each quarter. It told investors
that if the ratio stayed in the 85-90% range, it would not have to
increase reserves. If, however, the ratio exceeded 90% "for a
prolonged period of time," Unum said it would have to reconsider
its "reserve assumptions."

At first, Unum's loss ratio remained in range. But signs of trouble
emerged in 2016: The loss ratio exceeded 90% for two quarters. It
dropped back down into an acceptable range for the next three, but
then things took a turn for the worse. In the final two quarters of
2017, Unum's loss ratio twice exceeded 90%. And when the same thing
happened in the first quarter of 2018, the situation came to a
head. Unum told investors that it would have to reevaluate its LTC
reserves. Investors recognized that a large reserve charge was
likely, and the Company's shares fell nearly 17%. Later that year,
Unum increased its LTC reserves by $750 million.

In the aftermath of these stock losses, some investors filed
proposed class-action lawsuits. The district court consolidated the
cases and appointed lead counsel to represent a putative class of
investors. The proposed class covered those who acquired Unum stock
from Oct. 27, 2016, to May 1, 2018.

The Plaintiffs allege that Unum Group and four of its corporate
officers engaged in securities fraud. How? By misleading investors
about the health of Unum's LTC insurance business and reserves.
More specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Unum misled investors
about: (1) its success in obtaining state approval for premium
increases; (2) the types of policies in its LTC block; (3) its loss
ratio, including the relevance of that ratio for evaluating its
reserves; and (4) its conformity with certain accounting
practices.

The Plaintiffs argue that Unum's alleged misstatements and
omissions violated section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, as
implemented by SEC Rule 10b-5.

In response to the complaint, Unum filed a motion to dismiss. The
district court granted the motion. It held that the Plaintiffs
failed to adequately allege at least two elements: (1) a material
misstatement or omission, and (2) scienter, which is the required
mental state for a finding of liability.

This appeal followed.

Circuit Judge Amul Roger Thapar, writing for the Panel, notes that
the Panel reviews the district court's decision de novo, accept the
Plaintiffs' factual allegations as true, and construe the complaint
in their favor, citing In re Omnicare, Inc. Sec. Litig., 769 F.3d
455, 469 (6th Cir. 2014).

Because the district court correctly held that the Plaintiffs
failed to adequately allege scienter, the Appellate Court affirms.
The Appellate Court needs not, and thus does not, address the
district court's conclusion that the Plaintiffs also failed to
adequately allege a material misstatement or omission.

The Plaintiffs urge the Appellate Court to reach a different
result. They point to five pieces of evidence that they say support
scienter. But after reviewing the evidence holistically, the
Appellate Court concludes that the district court was correct: Any
inference of scienter is not at least as compelling as an opposing
inference of nonfraudulent intent.

The Plaintiffs also argue that a California lawsuit filed against
Unum in May of 2013 bolsters the case for scienter (See Don v. Unum
Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. BC509235 (Cal. Super. Ct. May 17, 2013)).
That lawsuit alleged that Unum improperly calculated benefits for
its LTC policyholders. Unum settled the suit in November 2015.

Judge Thapar notes that the existence of an ancillary lawsuit
charging fraud by a company and the company's quick settlement of
that suit could support an inference of scienter, citing Helwig v.
Vencor, Inc., 251 F.3d 540, 552 (6th Cir. 2001) (en banc). But
those criteria are not met here. As the district court recognized,
the allegations of wrongdoing in the California suit relate to an
entirely different course of conduct (miscalculating
rate-of-inflation increases and improperly determining policy
anniversaries). And that course of conduct ended before the class
period in this suit even began.

Since the evidence in the two suits is not "closely related," the
settlement of the first suit is not persuasive evidence of scienter
in the second, Judge Thapar points out. What's more, the Judge
adds, despite the Plaintiffs' assertion that settlement talks began
a few months after the first lawsuit was filed, the case did not
actually settle until November 2015--roughly two and a half years
after the suit was filed. That is not the kind of "quick
settlement" that generates a meaningful inference of scienter.

The Plaintiffs also argue, among other things, that Unum's
executives had a financial incentive to engage in fraud, and that
this bolsters the case for scienter. The Plaintiffs base this
allegation on statements from Unum's compensation committee
explaining that it awarded both executives bonus compensation (in
part) for their role in developing and executing the Company's LTC
strategy, maintaining the block's stability, and ensuring that
financial performance was within expectations. The district court
held that the bonus compensation did not favor scienter because the
bonus-based claims were too general and too speculative to support
a specific inference of scienter.

Judge Thapar opines that the bonuses were not tied to a single key
metric, but rather (in part) to the executives' overall performance
in managing the LTC block, which was their job. And given the
paucity of other evidence supporting scienter, the bonus
compensation would not be enough to push the Plaintiffs' case for
scienter over the finish line, he points out.

After weighing this evidence, the Appellate Court concludes that
any whiff of scienter is not at least as compelling as any opposing
inference of nonfraudulent intent. As Unum argues, the facts in
this case are more consistent with a company playing a constant
game of catch-up than with fraud. Unum raised its reserves multiple
times over a short period. Other major insurance companies had to
increase their reserves too. When Unum increased its reserves in
2014, it admitted that it was not immune to future reserve charges.
And it told investors that if the current environment persists
longer than the three- to five-year time horizon, the Company will
probably have to revisit the assumption again.

For all of these reasons, the Sixth Circuit holds that the
Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege an inference of scienter
that is cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference
of nonfraudulent intent. The Court, thus, affirms the judgment of
the district court dismissing the Plaintiffs' complaint for failure
to state a claim.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion dated June 28, 2021, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/44anjjhx from Leagle.com.


WAL-MART: Seeks Modification of Briefing Schedule in Alvarado Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLAUDIA ALVARADO,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware corporation; SAM'S WEST,
INC., an Arkansas corporation; and 23 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. 2:20-cv-01926-AB-KK (C.D. Cal., Filed January 22, 2020),
the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order briefly continuing
the briefing schedule and hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification, to allow Defendants sufficient time to gather
necessary evidence in support of their briefing in opposition to
class certification following delays in the discovery process not
caused by the Defendants.

Specifically, the Defendants request that the briefing schedule for
the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification be modified as
follows:

             Event                Current         Proposed
                                    Date          New Date

-- Opposition to Motion for    July 19, 2021     Aug. 2, 2021
   Class Certification

-- Reply to Opposition to      Aug. 11, 2021     Aug. 25, 2021

-- Motion for Class            Sept. 3, 2021     Sept. 17, 2021
   Certification Hearing
   on Motion for Class
   Certification

Walmart is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores from the United States, headquartered in
Bentonville, Arkansas.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated July 13, 2021 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/2UzJCwz at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paloma P. Peracchio, Esq.
          David A. Szwarcsztejn, Esq.
          Carmen M. Aguado, Esq.
          Mitchell A. Wrosch, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 239-9800
          Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
          E-mail: paloma.peracchio@ogletree.com
                  david.szwarcsztejn@ogletree.com
                  carmen.aguado@ogletree.com

WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Families to File Lawsuit Due to Flood Damage
--------------------------------------------------------------
clickondetroit.com reports that it's estimated that hundreds of
dollars of damage was caused to their homes by the wastewater.

The lawsuit -- expected to be filed in the Wayne County Circuit
Court -- aims to pursue damage claims against local authorities and
the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department, which Grosse Pointe Park
city officials blamed for the flooding.

It's been about three weeks since the flooding and the streets of
Grosse Pointe Park still have trash on the side of the road --
drywall, Halloween decorations, baby equipment and more.

One of the lawyers on the lawsuit is also a victim of the floods --
Grosse Pointe Park resident Paul Doherty. Sewerage and storm runoff
mixed together and flooded his home. He said it was between 8-9
feet deep.

"It looked, my basement door was like looking into a brown swimming
pool," Doherty said. "Literally geysers up from the storm drains in
the basement."

Doherty works with the Ven Johnson Law firm, which points to the
issues that impacted the Conner Creek Pump Station in Detroit and
the Freud Street Containment Facility as the problem. They're both
owned by the Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA), but they're also
suing the cities of Detroit and Grosse Pointe Park because their
pumps didn't work when they should have.

They're claiming their clients had their property taken, their
homes were subject to trespass and gross negligence.

Doherty said he spent a week in a hotel and he's still drying out
his house.

"I am without hot water, a washing machine and without air
conditioning," Doherty said.

Those who have been impacted from the storm have until Aug. 8 to
file damage claims with their local municipality.

The GLWA released the following statement:

"At its meeting today, the Great Lakes Water Authority Board of
Directors formed an Ad Hoc Committee from which it will lead the
Board's independent investigation of GLWA's response to the June
25-26, 2021, rain event. The Ad Hoc Committee will include John
Zech, the Board representative appointed by Wayne County, Brian
Baker, the Board representative appointed by Macomb County and Gary
Brown, one of the two Board representatives appointed by the city
of Detroit. One of the committee's first actions will be to hire an
engineering firm and a legal firm to assist them in their review."

- Michelle A. Zdrodowski, chief public affairs officer

A statement from the city of Grosse Pointe Park reads

"The City's pumps and infrastructure worked correctly and as
intended during the rain event. At this point, it is our
understanding that the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department and/or
Great Lakes Water Authority experienced several failures with their
systems during the rain event that caused various levels of damage
to many of our residents. We are continuing to engage in an
exhaustive investigation and evaluation of this event. When
additional information is available to us, we will share it with
our residents, and welcome further discussion after a full
investigation is complete. The City is also committed to developing
long term solutions to the issue with its regional partners and to
assisting the City's residents recovering from the damage caused."
[GN]


WELTMAN & WEINBERG: Parties Stipulate to Extend Class Cert Reply
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Christopher Gibson, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Weltman,
Weinberg & Reis Co., L.P.A., Case No. 1:19-cv-00920-PLM-RSK (W.D.
Mich.), the Parties stipulate that Plaintiff may have an extension
of time until and including July 29, 2021 to file his reply in
support of his motion for class certification.

Weltman & Weinberg is a full-service creditors' rights law firm.

A copy of the Parties motion dated July 12, 2021 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3eDk9cp at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell S. Thompson, IV, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PC
          5235 E. Southern Ave. D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 388-8898
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
          E-mail: rthompson@ThompsonConsumerLaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey S. Hengeveld, Esq.
          PLUNKETT COONEY
          38505 Woodward Ave., Ste. 100
          Bloomfield Hills MI 48304
          Telephone: (248) 594-8202
          Facsimile: (248) 901-4040
          E-mail: jhengeveld@plunkettcooney.com

XYLOCOPA LLC: Caceres Sues Over Construction Workers' Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE CACERES, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. XYLOCOPA, LLC and LUIS GUTIERREZ,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-13548 (D.N.J., July 12,
2021) is a class and collective action complaint brought against
the Defendants for their alleged intentional and willful violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey State Wage
Payment Law.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a fulltime and
non-exempt construction worker beginning in or about September 2020
and continues to work to date.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated construction workers were not properly compensated by the
Defendant despite regularly working more than 40 hours per week.
The Plaintiff regularly worked approximately 45 to 60 hours per
work week, but the Defendant did not pay him overtime compensation
at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for
all hours he worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this complaint demanding payment of statutory
compensation for all overtime hours due to him and other similarly
situated construction workers, as well as liquidated damages and/or
treble damages as applicable, reasonable attorneys' fees and
litigation costs, and for all other appropriate relief.

Xylocopa, LLC provides commercial and residential construction
services. Luis Gutierrez is the owner of the Corporate Defendant.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          300 Carnegie Center, Suite 150
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Tel: (201) 687-9977
          Fax: (201) 595-0308
          E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com
                  jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com

ZENNI OPTICAL: Cruz Suit Moved to C.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------
The case styled as Sherry Cruz, Individually and on Behalf of all
Others Similarly Situated v. Zenni Optical, Inc., Case No.
2021-L-000079 was transferred from the Seventh Judicial District,
Sangamon County to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of Illinois on July 19, 2021.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:21-cv-03168-SEM-TSH to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Zenni Optical -- https://www.zennioptical.com/ -- aims to provide
the most affordable eyeglasses to people all over the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tiffany S Fordyce, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          77 W Wacker Dr., Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 456-8400
          Email: FordyceT@gtlaw.com


[*] Court Approves Autopay Options Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Buckley disclosed that on June 28, the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey granted preliminary approval of a settlement
in a class action against a national bank alleging breach of
contract and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act by,
among other things, misleading cardholders about their autopay
options. According to the plaintiff's memorandum of law requesting
preliminary approval of the class action settlement, the bank
presented cardholders with several payment options when setting up
automatic online monthly payments. The plaintiff filed a putative
class action alleging the "Amount Due" option, which he selected,
"was misleading since customers who selected it likely intended to
pay the total 'amount due' each month, leaving no balance to carry
over and incur interest, but instead found themselves paying only
the minimum amount due, thereby leaving a balance that was subject
to interest charges." This option, the plaintiff contended, was
duplicative of the "Minimum Amount Due" option, which allowed
cardholders to pay the minimum amount owed on their most recent
credit card statement and carry the remaining balance (thus,
incurring interest) to the following month. Plaintiff claimed this
created potential confusion for cardholders "who intended to pay
off their entire monthly credit card balance and instead ended up
paying the minimum amount and accruing interest they were trying to
avoid." The parties agreed to stay the case pending mediation and
reached a settlement, under which the bank agreed to pay $5.95
million to establish a settlement fund. The fund will cover
approximately 100,000 class members who enrolled in the bank's
eBill autopay, "selected the 'Amount Due' payment option before
March 7, 2021," and "switched their payment option from 'Amount
Due' to 'Account Balance' after making an 'Amount Due' payment and
being assessed interest" during the identified time period. [GN]


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2021. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***